Clandestine manufacture and misdeclaration of yarn sustained duty demand, confiscation, and reduced penalty.

An unretracted inculpatory statement, supported by chemical test results and private production records, established that polyester synthetic yarn was manufactured and cleared under the guise of shoddy yarn, so the duty demand and classification challenge failed. The same evidence justified confiscation of the seized yarn because the claim that the yarn was made from used or new rags was not proved, and redemption fine was maintained. Penal consequences were warranted, but the penalty was reduced in the overall circumstances and the separate penalty under Rule 173Q was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had manufactured polyester synthetic yarn and cleared it as shoddy yarn so as to sustain the duty demand; (ii) whether confiscation of the seized yarn and the penalties imposed were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had manufactured polyester synthetic yarn and cleared it as shoddy yarn so as to sustain the duty demand.

Analysis: The seized yarn was subjected to chemical test and found to be polyester yarn. The Director's unretracted statement admitted manufacture of polyester yarn, non-declaration to the department, and clearance under the guise of shoddy yarn. The private production records also reflected manufacture of polyester yarn and were corroborated by the presence of POY waste and the test report. The request for cross-examination of the chemical examiner was rejected, there being no material to doubt the correctness of the test results.

Conclusion: The duty demand was sustained and the classification plea was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the seized yarn and the penalties imposed were justified.

Analysis: Since the yarn was found to be polyester yarn cleared in the guise of shoddy yarn, confiscation of the seized goods was warranted. However, the notification relied upon by the appellant applied only where the polyester yarn was made out of used or new rags, which was not established. On the question of penalty, the facts justified penal consequences, but the quantum required moderation in the overall circumstances.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld with redemption fine, the penalty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was reduced, and the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the substantive duty liability and confiscation maintained but the penal burden scaled down.

Ratio Decidendi: An unretracted inculpatory statement, supported by chemical test results and private records, can sustain a finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance, and confiscation and penalty may follow accordingly.

---