Clandestine removal liability must be fixed on the actual manufacturer; joint and several duty demands cannot stand without clear findings.

Duty and penalties in clandestine removal matters must be fastened on the actual person liable, and a joint and several confirmation against two noticees is unsustainable without a clear finding identifying the true manufacturer or evader. Where the adjudication also suffers from non-supply of relied upon documents and unresolved cross-examination issues, natural justice is breached and the matter must be remanded for fresh decision. The impugned order was set aside and de novo adjudication was directed with compliance with procedural fairness.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a demand of duty and penalties could be confirmed jointly and severally against two noticees without a conclusive finding as to which entity was the actual person liable for the alleged clandestine removal. (ii) Whether the impugned adjudication required to be set aside and remanded for fresh decision with directions to follow natural justice, including supply of relied upon documents and consideration of cross-examination.

Issue (i): Whether a demand of duty and penalties could be confirmed jointly and severally against two noticees without a conclusive finding as to which entity was the actual person liable for the alleged clandestine removal.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had not reached a definite conclusion as to whether the duty, if any, was payable by the manufacturer or by the trade name owner/purchaser. Instead, the demand and penalties were confirmed jointly and severally against both entities. The settled view is that in matters of clandestine removal, liability must be fastened on the actual manufacturer, and a joint confirmation without a clear finding on the evader is unsustainable.

Conclusion: The joint and several confirmation of duty and penalties was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned adjudication required to be set aside and remanded for fresh decision with directions to follow natural justice, including supply of relied upon documents and consideration of cross-examination.

Analysis: The record showed grievance regarding non-supply of relied upon material and unresolved cross-examination issues. The matter was also extremely old, and the adjudication had not been carried out in a careful manner. In these circumstances, a fresh adjudication was warranted, with the Revenue expected to supply the necessary documents or exclude them from consideration if not supplied, and to deal with cross-examination in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with directions to observe natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the common demand and penalties could not stand in their present form and the matter required fresh adjudication on the correct liability after compliance with procedural fairness.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty and penalty cannot be sustained on a joint and several basis against multiple noticees unless the adjudicating authority first records a clear finding identifying the actual person liable, and a defective adjudication violating natural justice must be remanded for fresh decision.

---