Clandestine removal findings sustained as evidence supported duty demand and no substantial question of law arose.

Clandestine removal of excisable goods was upheld where seized records, private registers, stock and consumption data, loose slips and dispatch documents showed suppressed production and clearances. The statutory records were found not to reflect the true position, and the duty demand based on unaccounted raw material consumption and private records was sustained. The challenge was treated as a request to reappreciate evidence, but the concurrent factual findings were neither perverse nor affected by legal error or misreading of evidence. No substantial question of law arose, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had clandestinely removed excisable goods from the factory without payment of duty, and whether the concurrent findings upholding the duty demand and penalty raised any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The demand was upheld on the basis of seized and resumed records, private registers, stock and consumption data, loose slips, dispatch documents, and the mismatch between declared production and material consumption. The findings recorded that the statutory records did not reflect the true position, that unaccounted production and clearances had been established, and that the duty demand based on suppressed raw material consumption and private records could not be faulted. The Court held that the assessees' challenge amounted only to a request for reappreciation of evidence, while the factual findings on clandestine removal were neither perverse nor vitiated by legal error or misreading of evidence.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine removal was sustained, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal failed.

---