Clandestine manufacture valuation and penalty required re-quantification after abatement and input duty credit were not fully allowed.

Confessional statements of the partners were treated as reliable because the alleged retraction was belated and no satisfactory reply to the show cause notice was produced, supporting an adverse inference and upholding the finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance. The assessable value still had to be reworked by allowing abatement from the sale price under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and considering input duty credit, as neither had been properly granted. The duty liability was therefore required to be re-quantified, and the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be reconsidered accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand arising from alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of computers was sustainable, and whether the assessable value and penalty required reconsideration after allowing statutory abatements and input duty credit.

Analysis: The confessional statements recorded from the partners were treated as reliable, as the alleged retraction was made much later and no satisfactory reply to the show cause notice was produced, warranting an adverse inference. On that basis, the finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance was upheld. At the same time, the assessable value had to be worked out after allowing the benefit of abatement from sale price under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and after considering input duty credit, neither of which had been duly granted. Since the duty liability had to be re-quantified, the quantum of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also required fresh determination.

Conclusion: The duty demand was sustained in principle, but the matter was remanded for fresh quantification after granting the permissible abatements and credit, with the penalty to be reconsidered accordingly.

---