Clandestine removal could not be sustained where the Revenue...

Clandestine removal could not be sustained where the Revenue relied only on private records, untested statements and inadmissible electronic printouts without corroboration of raw material procurement, actual clearances, buyers, sale proceeds, transport, electricity use or production capacity. Statements recorded under Section 14 were held unusable because Section 9D procedure was not followed, and computer data from pen-drives and printouts was inadmissible for want of the statutory certificate and safeguards under Section 36B. The alleged stock shortage, based only on eye estimation, was also rejected. As the duty demand failed on evidence, the penalties were likewise unsustainable.