CT-3 certificate delay and clandestine removal evidence shaped duty, confiscation, and redemption fine outcomes.

A belatedly produced CT-3 certificate was treated as a procedural lapse, so duty on the covered clearances was not sustainable. Duty on the balance quantity was upheld because clandestine removal was corroborated by admissions, recipient-side statements, seizure of loaded trucks, factory shortage, and surrounding evidence, while later retractions were found insufficient. Confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery with redemption fine was set aside because Rule 173Q(2) had been omitted and no enabling provision was in force when notice was issued. The redemption fine on confiscated goods was reduced as some goods were found at the recipient's premises.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty could be demanded on clearances covered by a belated CT-3 certificate; (ii) whether the duty demand on alleged clandestine removals was sustainable on the basis of statements and surrounding evidence; (iii) whether confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery with redemption fine was valid when Rule 173Q(2) was no longer in force; and (iv) whether the redemption fine on confiscated goods required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether duty could be demanded on clearances covered by a belated CT-3 certificate.

Analysis: The clearance in question was covered by a CT-3 certificate issued by the jurisdictional Central Excise officer. Once such certificate exists, the duty incidence stands shifted in the manner contemplated by the bond procedure, and a delay in obtaining the certificate was treated as a procedural lapse. The clearance was therefore not liable to duty merely because the certificate was produced late.

Conclusion: The duty demand relating to the quantity covered by the CT-3 certificate was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand on alleged clandestine removals was sustainable on the basis of statements and surrounding evidence.

Analysis: The evidence included admissions by persons connected with the assessee, statements from the recipient side admitting receipt of goods, and seizure of trucks loaded with goods linked to the disputed clearances. The later affidavits retracting some statements were not accepted as sufficient to displace the corroborated material. The shortage found in the assessee's factory and the past clearances to the recipient were treated as established by the totality of evidence.

Conclusion: The duty demand on the balance quantity representing shortages and past clandestine clearances was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery with redemption fine was valid when Rule 173Q(2) was no longer in force.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued after omission of Rule 173Q(2), and the saving provision in Section 38A had not yet come into force for the relevant proceedings. In the absence of a live enabling provision on the date of notice, confiscation of the fixed assets could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery and the associated redemption fine were set aside.

Issue (iv): Whether the redemption fine on confiscated goods required reduction.

Analysis: Part of the goods on which fine had been imposed were found at the recipient's premises and did not belong to the assessee. In that backdrop, the original quantum of redemption fine was considered excessive and was reduced.

Conclusion: The redemption fine on the confiscated goods was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with relief granted against the demand relating to the CT-3 covered clearances, the confiscation of fixed assets, and by reduction of redemption fine, while the balance duty demand based on clandestine removal was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A belatedly produced CT-3 certificate may constitute a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive basis for duty demand, but clandestine removal can be established through corroborated admissions, seizure, and surrounding circumstances; confiscation must rest on a subsisting statutory enabling provision.

---