Clandestine removal can be proved by admissions and records, but duty cannot rest on a blanket sales multiplier.

Clandestine removal of excisable goods may be established through employee statements, the proprietor's admission, and corroborative seized records showing unbilled sales and suppression in statutory records; later retractions did not displace the earlier admissions, so the allegation was sustained. However, duty demand could not be quantified by a blanket multiplication of all sales by four, because the evidence showed the 20:80 pattern applied only to some parties. The computation therefore had to be confined to clearances specifically supported by statements or documentary evidence, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, including reconsideration of penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the charge of clandestine removal of excisable goods was established on the basis of employee statements, the proprietor's admission, and documentary evidence; (ii) whether the demand could be quantified by applying a blanket multiplication of sales by four in respect of all customers.

Issue (i): whether the charge of clandestine removal of excisable goods was established on the basis of employee statements, the proprietor's admission, and documentary evidence.

Analysis: The demand was supported by statements of employees and the proprietor admitting unrecorded production and clearances, together with seized records indicating sales without bills and suppression in statutory records. The later retractions were not accepted as sufficient to displace the earlier admissions, and the documentary material corroborated the allegation of surreptitious removal. The burden on the Revenue was treated as discharged on the evidence available.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine removal was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the demand could be quantified by applying a blanket multiplication of sales by four in respect of all customers.

Analysis: The statements did not show that every clearance to every customer was suppressed in the same ratio. The evidence indicated that the 20:80 pattern applied only in respect of some parties, and the demand could not be extrapolated universally by multiplying all sales by four. The quantification therefore required restriction to those clearances specifically supported by the statements or by documentary evidence of clandestine clearance.

Conclusion: The method of quantification was not sustained and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, including reconsideration of penalty.

Final Conclusion: The substantive allegation of clandestine removal stood affirmed, but the duty and penalty computation were set aside for limited reconsideration on the evidence and remitted for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal may be sustained on converging admissions and corroborative documentary evidence, but duty demand cannot be computed by a blanket extrapolation unsupported by issue-specific evidence.

---