Clandestine removal proved by parallel invoices and false duty entries, but delayed challan entries alone did not sustain double-clearance demand.

Seized records, admissions and parallel invoice books can prove clandestine removal where goods are shown as duty-paid without actual duty payment, and the duty demand based on Annexures B and C was upheld on that footing. By contrast, where all challan copies were prepared simultaneously and the only defect was delayed duty entries in later copies, the material was insufficient to establish double clearance, so the demand for Annexure D was not sustained. The company's penalty was reduced in view of partial relief on duty, while the Managing Director's penalty was maintained because the conduct was found to have occurred with his knowledge and consent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty demand relating to Annexures B and C, based on the maintenance of two sets of invoices and false duty-paying particulars, was sustainable; (ii) Whether the duty demand relating to Annexure D, where duty was entered subsequently in the triplicate and quadruplicate copies, could be treated as a case of clandestine removal; (iii) Whether the personal penalty on the appellant company and the penalty on the Managing Director were liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the duty demand relating to Annexures B and C, based on the maintenance of two sets of invoices and false duty-paying particulars, was sustainable.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant maintained two sets of challan books throughout the relevant period. The original and duplicate copies reflected duty payment particulars, but the corresponding statutory debits were not actually made. The seized records, admissions of the representatives and Managing Director, and the recovery of parallel invoice books established a deliberate device by which clearances were shown as duty-paid while the goods were actually removed without payment of duty. The explanation that the second set was only for matching serial numbers or due to financial difficulty was rejected as inconsistent with the seized material and the manner in which the documents were maintained and destroyed.

Conclusion: The duty demand covered by Annexures B and C was upheld and is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand relating to Annexure D, where duty was entered subsequently in the triplicate and quadruplicate copies, could be treated as a case of clandestine removal.

Analysis: For the period covered by Annexure D, all four copies of the challans were prepared simultaneously, but the material did not show recovery of a duplicate set of invoices from the premises. The department's case rested mainly on delayed debit entries in later copies. Although such a practice was not lawful and could justify penal action, the available evidence was insufficient to conclude that the goods had been cleared twice. On that narrower footing, the assessee was given the benefit of doubt on the duty demand itself.

Conclusion: The duty demand covered by Annexure D was not sustained and is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the personal penalty on the appellant company and the penalty on the Managing Director were liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: In view of the proved clandestine removals for part of the demand, a personal penalty on the appellant company remained warranted, but the quantum was reduced in light of the partial relief granted on duty. The penalty on the Managing Director was maintained because the activities were carried out with his knowledge and consent.

Conclusion: The company's penalty was reduced to Rs. 25 lakh, and the penalty on the Managing Director was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of deleting the duty demand for Annexure D and reducing the company's penalty, while the major duty demand based on the proved clandestine clearances and the penalty on the Managing Director were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized records, admissions, and parallel invoice books establish a deliberate device for showing duty-paid clearances without actual duty payment, clandestine removal is proved; but a mere delayed entry in subsequent copies, without stronger corroboration, may justify penalty without sustaining a finding of double clearance.

---