Evidentiary support for clandestine clearance fails where remand evidence is not properly verified and computer printouts lack admissibility.

Duty, interest and penalty cannot be sustained where, after remand, the adjudicating authority fails to properly verify declarations, challans, balance sheets and movement records that support trading activity and stock movement. Reliance on computer printouts is also impermissible unless the statutory conditions for admissibility are satisfied. On the facts recorded, the finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance lacked proper evidentiary support, and the demand, including the partner's penalty, was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty, interest and penalty could be sustained when the adjudicating authority did not properly verify the documentary evidence produced after remand and relied upon computer printouts without satisfying the requirements for admissibility.

Analysis: The appellant produced multiple documents on remand, including declarations, delivery challans, balance sheets and movement statements, and the seized material from the premises also indicated trading activity and records relating to stock movement. The adjudicating authority did not meaningfully verify the available evidence before reaffirming the demand. The appellant also challenged reliance on computer printouts in the absence of compliance with the statutory conditions governing their admissibility. In these circumstances, the finding confirming clandestine manufacture and clearance was not supported by a proper evidentiary appreciation.

Conclusion: The demand of duty, interest and penalty could not be sustained and was set aside. The penalty imposed on the partner was also unsustainable and was set aside.

---