Clandestine removal may be proved by contemporaneous production records and fictitious supplier enquiries, while penalties must match the noticee's legal status.

Contemporaneous shift-wise production records, together with enquiries showing that the alleged outside suppliers were fictitious, were treated as reliable material to support a finding of suppressed production and clandestine clearances; the duty demand was therefore sustained. Penalty treatment depended on the legal status of the noticees: the penalty on the proprietorship concern was set aside because a proprietorship cannot be penalised separately from its proprietor in the manner imposed, while the penalties on the proprietor and the person in charge were retained but reduced having regard to the circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty demand was sustainable on the basis of the shift-wise production register and the investigation showing that the alleged outside suppliers were fictitious and the clearances were in fact suppressed production; (ii) whether the penalties imposed on the proprietorship concern, its proprietor, and the person in charge were legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the duty demand was sustainable on the basis of the shift-wise production register and the investigation showing that the alleged outside suppliers were fictitious and the clearances were in fact suppressed production.

Analysis: The entries in the shift-wise production register were treated as reliable contemporaneous material, and the explanation that the register was maintained only to note goods ready for despatch was found unconvincing. Independent enquiries showed that the firms named in the invoices did not exist at the stated addresses, which struck at the core of the claim of genuine outside purchases. The surrounding circumstances, including the contract with the Electricity Board requiring marking indicating the maker, further weakened the plea that the clearances were only trading transactions.

Conclusion: The duty demand was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed on the proprietorship concern, its proprietor, and the person in charge were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The penalty on the firm was found unsustainable because the concern was a proprietorship and the firm and proprietor could not both be penalised in the manner imposed. At the same time, the gravity of the duty involved justified retention of penalty liability on the individual noticees, though not at the original quantum. The penalty reduction reflected a limited modification rather than complete exoneration.

Conclusion: The penalty on the firm was set aside and the penalties on the proprietor and the person in charge were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the duty demand sustained but the penalty structure modified by deleting the firm's penalty and reducing the individual penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: Contemporaneous production records and external enquiries disproving the existence of alleged suppliers can establish clandestine removal and sustain duty demand, while penalty must be calibrated to the legal status of the noticee and the overall circumstances of the case.

---