Clandestine removal allegation fails where intercepted goods match a duty-paid invoice and supporting packing records.

6 bags of P.V. yarn intercepted in an auto rickshaw were treated as part of an earlier duty-paid consignment, not as clandestinely removed goods. The explanation that the bags formed part of a larger invoice-covered shipment was supported by the packing slip and by the absence of any adverse verification from the factory or consignee. With no contrary evidence on record, the inference of clandestine removal could not be sustained, and the allegation failed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 6 bags of P.V. Yarn intercepted in the auto rickshaw were clandestinely removed without payment of duty or were part of the larger consignment covered by the invoice on which duty had already been paid.

Analysis: The goods were shown to be industrial raw material covered by an invoice issued earlier for 16 bags. The assessee's explanation was that the 6 bags formed part of the same duty-paid consignment and had been transported separately because the original transport could not carry the full quantity. The explanation found support from the tallying packing slip and the absence of any adverse verification from the factory or the consignee. No contrary evidence was brought on record to disprove the assessee's version. In these circumstances, the inference of clandestine removal was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal failed, and the 6 bags were accepted as part of the duty-paid consignment. The finding was in favour of the assessee.

---