Clandestine removal cannot rest on affidavit figures alone without independent corroboration and positive evidence.

Figures disclosed in affidavits filed for coal allotment could not, by themselves, prove clandestine manufacture and removal of sodium silicate. The Department had to establish suppression and clearance with positive, corroborative material; information given for a different purpose could at most raise an inference. Because the adjudication relied only on affidavit figures without independent supporting evidence, the duty demand was unsustainable and the assessee's challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the figures stated in affidavits filed before the Department of Industries for coal allotment could, corroborative evidence, be treated as proof of clandestine manufacture and removal of sodium silicate so as to sustain the duty demand.

Analysis: The demand was founded substantially on the figures disclosed to the Department of Industries in affidavits submitted for coal allocation. The appellants consistently denied that those figures represented actual production, and it was held that the Department carried the burden of proving clandestine manufacture and clearance with positive material. Information furnished for a different purpose, or a sworn statement made in another context, could at best give rise to an inference, but not constitute conclusive proof in the absence of supporting evidence. Since the adjudicating authority relied only on such figures without independent corroboration, the demand could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The Department was not justified in treating the affidavit figures as sufficient proof of clandestine removal, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---