Stock shortage and clandestine removal can justify duty liability, while penalty must still reflect proportionality.

Proven shortage of packed automotive head lamps, left unexplained by the assessee and not rebutted by its later plea regarding loose export goods, supported a finding of clandestine removal and liability to duty. The stock verification was accepted at the time of inspection, and the un-retracted statement that only packed lamps were entered in RG 1 reinforced the Department's case. The penalty under Rule 173Q was also held to require a judicious and proportional exercise of discretion, so the penalty was reduced as excessive in relation to the offence, while being otherwise sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the shortage of packed automotive head lamps established clandestine removal and justified confirmation of duty demand; (ii) whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the shortage of packed automotive head lamps established clandestine removal and justified confirmation of duty demand.

Analysis: The stock verification was accepted by the authorised signatory at the time of inspection, and his later statement that only packed lamps were entered in RG 1 remained un-retracted. The explanation offered in reply to the show cause notice did not satisfactorily account for the missing packed goods, and the belated plea regarding loose goods meant for export did not rebut the Department's case. On the facts found, the shortage represented goods removed otherwise than on payment of duty.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was rightly confirmed and is upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q required reduction.

Analysis: The penalty provision vested discretion in the authority, and the lower authorities had not exercised that discretion judiciously. The penalty already imposed was considered disproportionate to the offence established, though some penalty was warranted in view of the clandestine removal found proved.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 173Q was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 30,000 and was otherwise sustained.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand was maintained in full, while the penalty was moderated to a lower amount, leaving the impugned order standing only to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A proven stock shortage, when not satisfactorily explained and supported by a credible rebuttal, can sustain a finding of clandestine removal and duty liability, while the penalty imposed must still reflect a judicious exercise of discretion and proportionality.

---