Clandestine removal and raw material shortage claims failed where the notice lacked allegations and the shortage was unproved.

Duty demand for alleged shortage of raw material was held unsustainable because the shortage was not conclusively established, the material in process was not properly verified, and the show cause notice did not allege clandestine removal of the raw material or the finished goods made from it. The Department could not sustain a demand on a theory beyond the notice, and mere availing of Modvat credit did not justify confirmation of duty when reversal had not been sought. The redemption fine and penalty on confiscated goods and the tempo were reduced because the confiscation was not disputed, but the monetary liabilities were considered excessive on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty could be confirmed on the alleged shortage of raw material when the shortage was not conclusively established and the show cause notice contained no allegation of clandestine removal of the raw material or the finished goods made from it; (ii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed in relation to the confiscated goods and tempo were liable to be reduced.

Issue (i): Whether duty could be confirmed on the alleged shortage of raw material when the shortage was not conclusively established and the show cause notice contained no allegation of clandestine removal of the raw material or the finished goods made from it.

Analysis: The record did not show any verification of raw material in process, although the officers had noticed only the finished goods and raw material stored in bags. The alleged shortage was not proved conclusively because the material in process was not taken into account. No allegation of clandestine removal of the raw material as such, or of finished goods manufactured therefrom, had been made in the show cause notice. The Department could not travel beyond the notice to sustain a duty demand on a theory not pleaded. The fact that Modvat credit had been availed did not justify confirmation of duty when reversal of credit had not been sought.

Conclusion: The duty demand on the alleged shortage of raw material was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed in relation to the confiscated goods and tempo were liable to be reduced.

Analysis: The confiscation of the finished goods seized from the tempo was not contested. However, the fine and penalty were considered excessive in relation to the duty involved and the factual matrix. The penalty imposed under Rule 173Q was held not to fit the facts as alleged, and the punishment was confined to the goods actually seized from the tempo.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced, with a further reduction of the fine relating to the tempo, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was modified by deleting the duty demand and reducing the monetary liabilities connected with confiscation and penalty, thereby granting the assessee substantial but not complete relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty demand cannot be sustained on an alleged shortage of raw material unless the shortage is conclusively proved and the show cause notice specifically alleges the manner of clandestine removal on which the demand is founded.

---