Clandestine removal proved through dealer statements, seizures and corroborative records, sustaining duty demand, confiscation and penalty.

Clandestine removal of cassettes without payment of duty was proved by unchallenged dealer statements, admissions by the appellant's representatives, seizure of unaccounted goods, and corroborative records showing misdescription of the goods. The evidence was treated as sufficient because the statements were not effectively tested by cross-examination, and belated retractions by only two dealers did not displace the overall record. Statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were treated as admissible and reliable when not promptly retracted. On that basis, the duty demand, confiscation and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty, confiscation and penalty were sustainable on the basis of seized goods, dealer statements, admissions and other corroborative material to prove clandestine manufacture and removal without payment of duty.

Analysis: The evidence was found to be sufficient to establish clandestine clearance of cassettes without payment of duty. The finding was supported by dealer statements, admissions by the appellant's representatives, seizure of unaccounted goods, and corroborative documents showing that goods described otherwise were in fact cassettes. The statements had not been effectively challenged by cross-examination, and the belated retractions by only two dealers did not dislodge the otherwise consistent evidence. Statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were treated as admissible and reliable when not retracted promptly, and the quantified duty demand was supported by the record.

Conclusion: The demand of duty, confiscation and penalty were upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal may be proved by a combination of unchallenged dealer statements, admissions, seizures and corroborative records, and such evidence can sustain duty demand and penalty when retractions are belated and no effective cross-examination is undertaken.

---