Clandestine removal through misdescription of goods was established, sustaining duty, interest, and penalty under central excise law.

Clandestine removal was found where flush doors were cleared as panel doors to claim exemption from central excise duty. The record showed that government supply orders required flush doors, the rates charged corresponded to flush doors, and the appellants produced no reliable material to support the claimed description. The absence of proper stock records, together with statements and conduct during investigation, supported the department's case that the true nature of the goods had been suppressed. On concurrent factual findings, the confirmation of duty, interest, and penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had clandestinely removed flush doors by describing them as panel doors so as to avail exemption and avoid payment of central excise duty.

Analysis: The record showed that the supply orders issued by the Government required flush doors, the rates charged matched the rates of flush doors, and the appellants failed to produce any reliable material to show that the goods supplied were only panel doors. The statements and conduct during investigation, including the absence of proper stock records and failure to substantiate the claimed description of goods, supported the department's case. The authorities below had concurrently found, on appraisal of the evidence, that the goods were cleared under incorrect description and that the appellants had suppressed the true nature of the clearances.

Conclusion: The charge of clandestine removal stood established and the confirmation of duty, interest, and penalty was upheld against the appellants.

---