Clandestine removal and brand name liability require tangible proof; house marks alone do not establish dutiable branded goods.

Allegations of clandestine removal require cogent, convincing and tangible evidence; assumptions, unsupported seizure findings, or the absence of stock reconciliation are insufficient to sustain duty demand, confiscation or penalties. The note also states that use of a company's full name on containers, where treated as a house mark and not shown to be a registered trade name or brand name, does not by itself establish liability as branded goods for duty or confiscation purposes. On that evidence, the impugned order was described as unsustainable and set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand, confiscation and penalties could be sustained on the allegation of clandestine removal without cogent evidence; (ii) whether the goods were liable to duty and confiscation on the basis of alleged brand name use and the description of the name on the containers.

Issue (i): whether the demand, confiscation and penalties could be sustained on the allegation of clandestine removal without cogent evidence.

Analysis: The record did not disclose reliable, convincing or tangible evidence of clandestine manufacture or removal. The tempo was seized at the factory premises, and the relevant documents were produced at the spot. The goods found in the factory were explained through production slips and were later cleared on payment of duty. As regards the goods found with dealers and the selling agent, no statement admitted receipt of goods without invoices, no stock reconciliation was carried out, and no supporting evidence such as excess raw material consumption or abnormal electricity use was collected. A charge of clandestine removal cannot rest on assumptions or presumptions.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved, and the duty demand, confiscation and related penalties could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether the goods were liable to duty and confiscation on the basis of alleged brand name use and the description of the name on the containers.

Analysis: There was no reliable evidence that the products bore a brand name. The containers displayed only the full corporate name, which was treated as a house mark and not as a trade name. The name was not shown to be a registered brand, and the evidence did not establish that branded goods were cleared. The use of the full name on the products, in the context of the applicable food products order, did not justify treating the goods as dutiable branded goods or ordering confiscation on that footing.

Conclusion: The goods could not be treated as branded goods on the evidence, and the confiscation and duty consequences on that ground were unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable in law and was set aside in toto, resulting in allowance of all appeals with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of clandestine removal must be proved by cogent, convincing and tangible evidence, and mere use of a company name as a house mark does not by itself establish use of a trade name or brand name for duty liability.

---