Evidentiary Corroboration required: handwritten bank annotations and third party notes cannot sustain clandestine removal demands without independent documentary links.

Departmental reliance on DGCEI records, bank statements with handwritten annotations and third party statements is insufficient to prove clandestine removal absent independent documentary corroboration; handwritten abbreviations and shroff notes do not identify recipients without proof of authorship or decoding, and testimonial or derived records require linking transport documents, stock discrepancies or direct production/receipt evidence to establish unaccounted removal. Where investigation fails to produce such documentary links or to properly verify annotations, evidentiary weight of diary/loose entries and hawala type records is limited. Operative effect: charges of clandestine removal cannot be sustained and corresponding demands and penalties should be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental evidence based on DGCEI records, bank statements with handwritten annotations and third party statements sufficiently proves clandestine removal and sustains demands and penalties against the appellants.

Analysis: The appeals were decided on the similarity of evidentiary materials with an earlier batch decision where Axis Bank statements showed cash deposits but names were hand scripted annotations by third parties; those annotations lacked proof of authorship or reliable decoding. Principles applied include the requirement of independent corroboration for diary/loose entries and hawala type records, evaluation of third party records for evidentiary weight, and appraisal of whether investigation produced documentary links (transport documents, stock discrepancies, direct proof of unaccounted production or receipts) to establish clandestine removal. The appraisal found that handwritten abbreviations and shroff notes do not by themselves identify recipients without proof of who recorded them or how they were decoded, and that testimonial or derived records without independent documentary corroboration are insufficient to prove clandestine removal. The analysis also notes incomplete or limited investigation undermining the chain of evidence necessary to sustain the allegations.

Conclusion: The charge of clandestine removal is not proved on the available evidence; demands and penalties based on that charge are unsustainable and are set aside, and the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee.

---