Clandestine removal demands require reliable, corroborated evidence; suspicion and retracted statements alone are insufficient.

Clandestine manufacture and removal demands cannot be sustained on suspicion, conjecture, or uncorroborated retracted statements; the Revenue must produce tangible, reliable evidence showing unaccounted production, removal, and receipt of sale proceeds. In this matter, the alleged raw material shortage was not proved by dependable physical weighment, eye-estimation alone was inadequate, and the private documents and statements relied upon were not sufficiently linked to the assessee. The absence of corroboration from buyers, transport evidence, excess power consumption, or other objective indicators meant the Tribunal's finding was not perverse and no appellate interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the Revenue failed to prove clandestine manufacture and removal of copper ingots and wire rods was perverse and warranted interference in appeal.

Analysis: Charges of clandestine removal require strong and cogent evidence, even though the standard in adjudication proceedings is preponderance of probabilities. The record showed that the alleged shortage of raw material was not established by reliable physical weighment, and an eye-estimation based verification could not, by itself, sustain a demand. The private documents and statements relied upon by the Revenue were found to be insufficiently linked to the assessee, the status of the alleged employees was not clearly proved, and the retracted statements lacked adequate independent corroboration. The Tribunal also noted the absence of supporting material such as verification from buyers, evidence of excess power consumption, transport of goods, or other concrete indicators of unaccounted production and clearance.

Conclusion: The finding of the Tribunal was not perverse, the Revenue failed to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance by credible evidence, and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for clandestine removal cannot be sustained on suspicion, conjecture, or uncorroborated retracted statements, and must rest on tangible, reliable, and properly connected evidence showing unaccounted manufacture, removal, and realization of sale proceeds.

---