Clandestine clearance and extended limitation upheld, while duty quantification and penalty were remanded for factual verification.

CESTAT, Mumbai sustained findings of clandestine manufacture and clearance where excise records did not match balance-sheet figures, purchasers denied buying software and confirmed purchase of fabrics, and the discrepancy established suppression of production and sales. On those facts, the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked and the demand on that count was upheld. The correct duty rate, however, depended on whether the goods were made from imported or indigenous raw material and whether an earlier show-cause demand had been duplicated, so the matter was remanded for factual verification, re-quantification under the applicable notification, exclusion of any duplicate demand, and reconsideration of penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee clandestinely manufactured and cleared fabrics without payment of duty under the guise of design software and by suppressing production and sales in excise records, and whether the extended period of limitation was invocable; (ii) whether the rate of duty had to be re-determined on the basis of the applicable notification and whether the penalty required reconsideration.

Issue (i): whether the assessee clandestinely manufactured and cleared fabrics without payment of duty under the guise of design software and by suppressing production and sales in excise records, and whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The sales shown as design software were not reflected in the central excise records, while the purchasers denied buying software and confirmed purchase of fabrics. The balance-sheet figures also showed higher production and sales than the excise records, and the balance sheet was treated as an authentic document. On these facts, the clearance of fabrics without accounting in excise records was established. Since the recorded figures did not match the balance-sheet figures, suppression was found and the extended period was held to be correctly invoked.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance was upheld, and the demand on this count was sustained. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was also upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the rate of duty had to be re-determined on the basis of the applicable notification and whether the penalty required reconsideration.

Analysis: The dispute on this aspect turned on whether the goods were manufactured out of imported raw material or only indigenous raw material, because the duty rate would depend on the applicable notification. The record also suggested that the duty already demanded in an earlier show-cause notice might have been duplicated in the present proceedings. These matters required factual verification by the original authority. The penalty issue was also linked to the fresh quantification exercise.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original authority to verify the factual position, re-quantify duty under the correct notification if necessary, exclude any duplicated demand, and reconsider penalty.

Final Conclusion: The findings on clandestine removal and limitation were maintained, but the quantification of duty and penalty was sent back for fresh adjudication after verification of the applicable duty regime.

Ratio Decidendi: Suppression of production and sales evidenced by discrepancies between excise records and authentic balance-sheet figures can justify a finding of clandestine clearance and sustain invocation of the extended period, while the correct duty rate and related penalty must be determined on verified facts where competing notifications may apply.

---