Clandestine Removal: uncorroborated evidence and suspicion were insufficient to prove duty evasion, benefit of doubt followed.

In alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of tread rubber, the Department failed to prove the charge with acceptable legal evidence. Reliance on an uncorroborated account, retracted or denied statements, and documents not satisfactorily linked to the assessee was held insufficient, particularly where the investigation was incomplete and material omissions remained unexplained. In penal matters of clandestine removal, the burden lies on the Department to establish the allegation, and suspicion cannot replace proof. The assessee was therefore given the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal of tread rubber without payment of duty was proved on the evidence on record.

Analysis: The evidence rested mainly on an uncorroborated "Anamath account", statements of persons who either retracted or denied the incriminating versions attributed to them, and documents whose linkage with the assessee was not satisfactorily established. The investigation was found to be incomplete, material omissions remained unexplained, and several circumstances relied upon by the Department created only suspicion. In penal matters involving clandestine removal, the burden lies on the Department to establish the charge with acceptable legal evidence, and suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof.

Conclusion: The charge of clandestine removal was not proved, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---