Clandestine removal demands need admissible, corroborated evidence; unproved private records and unreliable stock shortages are insufficient.

Clandestine removal allegations in central excise cannot be sustained on unproved private notebooks, challans or statements unless the evidence is admissible and independently corroborated. Where Section 9D procedure for relying on statements is not followed, their evidentiary value fails. The absence of proof of unaccounted inputs, electricity use, labour, identified buyers, transport trail or sale proceeds undermines the demand. Alleged stock shortages also cannot justify duty where physical stock-taking and weighment records are not reliably established and no independent evidence shows clandestine clearance. On these facts, the excise duty, CENVAT credit, interest and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of central excise duty based on alleged clandestine removal could be sustained on the strength of private records, statements and other material without corroborative evidence and without compliance with the statutory requirements governing admissibility of such evidence; (ii) Whether the duty demand founded on alleged shortages noticed during stock verification could be sustained when the stock-taking exercise and weighment details were not duly established.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of central excise duty based on alleged clandestine removal could be sustained on the strength of private records, statements and other material without corroborative evidence and without compliance with the statutory requirements governing admissibility of such evidence.

Analysis: The allegation of clandestine removal was founded mainly on entries in seized private notebooks, hand-written challans, weighment slips and statements recorded during investigation. The private records were not proved by their authors and no independent corroboration was brought on record by way of evidence of unaccounted procurement of inputs, excess electricity consumption, labour deployment, identified buyers, transport trail or flow-back of sale proceeds. The evidentiary value of the statements was also negated because the mandatory procedure under Section 9D was not followed. The materials recovered from private records alone, without compliance with the statutory discipline for admissibility and without corroboration, could not establish clandestine removal.

Conclusion: The duty demand based on alleged clandestine removal was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand founded on alleged shortages noticed during stock verification could be sustained when the stock-taking exercise and weighment details were not duly established.

Analysis: The shortage-based demand rested on the stock verification exercise, but the relevant physical stock-taking and weighment records were not relied upon and were not properly verified by the adjudicating or appellate authority. The record did not show reliable actual weighment of the full stock, and the conclusion of shortage was not supported by independent evidence showing clandestine clearance of the allegedly short goods. In these circumstances, the alleged shortages could not be treated as proof of duty evasion.

Conclusion: The duty demand based on alleged stock shortages was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The entire excise duty and CENVAT credit demands, along with consequential interest and penalties, failed for want of admissible and corroborated evidence, and the appellant company as well as the individual noticee obtained relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand of clandestine removal under the Central Excise law cannot be sustained on unproved private records or untested statements unless the mandatory evidentiary requirements are complied with and the allegation is supported by independent corroborative material.

---