Clandestine removal allegation fails where invoices and transport records support the documented movement of goods.

Clandestine removal was not proved where the goods moved under manufacturer invoices and supporting transport and sales documents, and the truck change at Siliguri was itself documented by the carrier. The finding of removal without duty payment or proper accountal was inconsistent with the admitted movement of the consignments and was unsupported by any record-based scrutiny of factory records. On that evidentiary basis, the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside, granting relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalty could be sustained on the allegation that the goods were manufactured and removed without payment of duty and without proper accountal, notwithstanding the documentary trail showing dispatch from the factory, transhipment at Siliguri, and delivery to the destination reflected in the invoices.

Analysis: The record showed that the goods moved under manufacturer's invoices and other transport and sales documents, and that the change of trucks at Siliguri was documented and effected by the carrier. The finding of clandestine removal was found to be inconsistent with the admitted movement of the goods from Kolkata to Siliguri and unsupported by any reference to scrutiny of the factory records. In the circumstances, the allegation that the consignments were removed without payment of duty or without proper accountal was not established.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee obtained relief against the excise demand and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine removal cannot be sustained when the documentary evidence establishes movement of goods under invoices and transport records and the revenue fails to support its conclusion with cogent record-based proof.

---