https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81624 Clandestine removal was not proved where the investigation failed to trace the consignment or establish clandestine manufacture or removal, and mere diversion from the stated destination did not by itself show clearance without a valid gate pass. The alleged Rule 52A violation also failed because the gate pass, truck number and timing discrepancy in octroi payment were insufficient without corroboration from transport or state authorities. The adverse inference was found to rest on conjecture rather than reliable evidence, so confiscation, duty demand and penalty could not be sustained. en-us Tue, 22 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:49:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81624 Clandestine removal was not proved where the investigation failed to trace the consignment or establish clandestine manufacture or removal, and mere diversion from the stated destination did not by itself show clearance without a valid gate pass. The alleged Rule 52A violation also failed because the gate pass, truck number and timing discrepancy in octroi payment were insufficient without corroboration from transport or state authorities. The adverse inference was found to rest on conjecture rather than reliable evidence, so confiscation, duty demand and penalty could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81624