Clandestine removal proved by admissions and parallel invoices; company liability sustained, while some personal penalties were deleted.

Clear admissions by company officials, supported by parallel invoices and contemporaneous duty debit, sustained the finding of clandestine removal and upheld the company's duty demand and penalty. The plea of duress was rejected because the record did not support coercion, and belated retraction did not displace the earlier statements. Demand relating to goods seized at another premises, along with confiscation-related action and reversal of credit for input shortage, was also upheld because the appellant produced no convincing proof of duty payment and the credit reversal had been voluntarily admitted. Personal penalties were deleted for some individuals due to lack of independent culpability, but were retained against the person whose admission clearly supported penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty demand and penalty were sustainable on the basis of parallel invoices and the statements of company officials admitting removal of goods without payment of duty; (ii) whether the demand relating to seized goods and the reversal of credit for shortage of inputs were justified; (iii) whether the penalties imposed on the individual appellants were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether duty demand and penalty were sustainable on the basis of parallel invoices and the statements of company officials admitting removal of goods without payment of duty.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the Director, authorised signatory and store keeper separately ed clearance of goods under parallel invoices, and duty was immediately debited. No refund claim was filed in respect of that payment. The plea of duress was not supported by the record, and the belated retraction did not dislodge the earlier admissions. The record also distinguished the later order relied upon by the appellants, as the facts and period were different. The statements recorded by the excise authorities were treated as admissible and reliable in the factual setting of the case.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty on the company on this count were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand relating to seized goods and the reversal of credit for shortage of inputs were justified.

Analysis: The appellant failed to produce evidence showing duty payment on the goods found at the other premises. The panchnama was prepared in the presence of witnesses and a director, weakening the challenge to the seizure. As to shortage of inputs, the credit was voluntarily reversed and admitted in the statement, supporting the departmental action.

Conclusion: The demand, confiscation-related action, and credit reversal were upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties imposed on the individual appellants were sustainable.

Analysis: The store keeper was found to have acted under instructions of a director and was not shown to have independent culpability warranting penalty. No material justified penalties on the managing director and another director, whereas the record contained a clear admission by Shri Sandeep Jain, supporting penalty against him.

Conclusion: Penalties on Shri Dharmendra Singh, Shri D.C. Jain and Shri Chandra Mohan Khurana were set aside, while the penalty on Shri Sandeep Jain was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The company's liability for duty and associated penalty was sustained, but the personal penalties were modified by deleting them in respect of some individual appellants and retaining it only against Shri Sandeep Jain.

Ratio Decidendi: Clear admissions by responsible company officials, coupled with contemporaneous payment of duty and absence of reliable evidence of coercion, can sustain findings of clandestine removal and justify duty demand and penalty.

---