Clandestine manufacture can be inferred from raw material shortages and unregistered recoveries; confiscation and penalties were partly sustained.

Unexplained shortage of essential raw material in the registered premises, together with recoveries of supari and other ingredients from unregistered premises, was treated as sufficient circumstantial evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of pan masala; direct proof of actual clearance was not required on these facts. Loose pan masala not entered in statutory records, and supari kept for use in production, were liable to confiscation because the chemical report showed the goods were marketable and not unfinished. The penalty on the proprietor was set aside as unsustainable beyond the earlier adjudication, while the trading firm's penalty was upheld in principle for knowingly assisting the activity but reduced to the earlier limit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether clandestine manufacture and removal of pan masala without payment of duty was established on the basis of shortage of raw material and recoveries from unregistered premises; (ii) whether confiscation of the unaccounted pan masala and supari was justified; and (iii) whether the penalties on the proprietor and the trading firm were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether clandestine manufacture and removal of pan masala without payment of duty was established on the basis of shortage of raw material and recoveries from unregistered premises.

Analysis: The shortage of essential raw material in the registered premises, coupled with the recovery of substantial quantities of supari and other ingredients from unregistered premises, supported the inference of clandestine manufacture. Pan masala and supari were recognized ingredients under Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the quantities found were sufficient to yield a large quantity of finished goods. The proprietor gave no satisfactory explanation for the shortages or the storage of raw materials in unregistered premises. The duty demand was therefore supported by circumstantial evidence, and direct proof of actual clandestine clearance was not necessary in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Cl clandestine manufacture and removal were proved against the firm, and the duty demand was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the unaccounted pan masala and supari was justified.

Analysis: The loose pan masala found in the factory was not entered in the statutory records, and the explanation that it had not reached a marketable stage was rejected on the basis of the chemical test report showing that it contained the essential ingredients and was not unfinished. The supari found in the trading premises was one of the raw materials for pan masala and had been kept for use in the clandestine manufacture of the final product. In these circumstances, confiscation of both the loose pan masala and the supari was warranted.

Conclusion: The confiscation orders were upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties on the proprietor and the trading firm were sustainable.

Analysis: The penalty on the proprietor could not be enhanced beyond the amount imposed in the earlier adjudication, and in any event a separate penalty on the proprietor was not sustainable when the firm had already been penalised. The penalty on the trading firm was justified because it knowingly assisted in storing a raw material essential for the manufacture of pan masala, but the amount could not be enhanced beyond the earlier figure.

Conclusion: The penalty on the proprietor was set aside, and the penalty on the trading firm was sustained but reduced.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and findings of clandestine removal were affirmed, the confiscation was maintained, and the penal liability was modified by deleting the penalty on the proprietor and reducing the penalty on the trading firm.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine manufacture and removal may be inferred from unexplained shortages of raw material, recoveries from unregistered premises, and surrounding circumstances, and penalties must conform to legal limits and cannot be enhanced contrary to the earlier adjudication.

---