Clandestine removal of imported POY and limitation objections failed, sustaining duty, interest and penalties.

Shortage of imported POY, coupled with admission that part of the material was found at another unit and that removal of goods was acknowledged, supported a finding of clandestine removal. Statements and circumstantial evidence were treated as sufficient to link the concerned persons to the evasion, so the duty demand, interest and penalties were upheld. The objection that the show cause notice was time-barred also failed because the notice dated 13.03.2008 was held to fall within the relevant limitation period computed from the officers' visit on 24.06.2003.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty, interest and penalties was sustainable on account of shortage and alleged clandestine removal of imported POY, and whether the show cause notice was time-barred.

Analysis: The shortage of imported POY was admitted, a substantial part of the material was found at another unit, and the removal of the goods was acknowledged. The involvement of the concerned persons was supported by statements and circumstantial evidence. The challenge based on delay in issuance of the show cause notice failed because the notice dated 13.03.2008 was within the relevant period reckoned from the visit of the officers on 24.06.2003.

Conclusion: The duty demand, interest and penalties were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

---