Clandestine removal requires corroborated evidence; third-party records and theoretical assumptions alone cannot sustain excise duty or penalties.

Clandestine removal under excise law must be supported by positive, tangible and corroborated evidence; third-party transport records, uncorroborated statements and theoretical production assumptions are insufficient. The text notes that duty demands based on transporters' documents failed where there was no factory seizure, no recovery of incriminating material, no proof of extra raw material procurement and no corresponding financial trail. It also states that alleged excess waste could not be treated as concealed clearance without supporting evidence, while freight, insurance and loading charges were excluded from assessable value on the basis of records showing they were separate charges. Parallel invoices similarly could not sustain duty or penalties without corroboration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether demand of duty based on transporters' records and third-party documents could be sustained without independent corroboration; (ii) Whether the allegation of clearance of POY in the guise of excess waste generation was proved; (iii) Whether the additional amounts collected towards freight, insurance and loading were includible in assessable value; (iv) Whether the demand and penalties based on five parallel invoices were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether demand of duty based on transporters' records and third-party documents could be sustained without independent corroboration.

Analysis: The demand was founded mainly on documents recovered from transporters and statements of their representatives. The documentary entries were not supported by any seizure from the factory, any recovery of incriminating material from the assessee, any evidence of procurement of extra raw material, or any proof of corresponding financial transactions. Cross-examination of witnesses diluted the Revenue's case, and the evidence did not establish clandestine removal with the degree of certainty required in such matters. Section 36A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held inapplicable in the manner suggested by the Revenue where the documents were third-party records without reliable corroboration.

Conclusion: The demand based on transporters' records was not sustainable and was rightly dropped.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegation of clearance of POY in the guise of excess waste generation was proved.

Analysis: The Revenue relied on a theoretical wastage norm to allege that excess waste represented clandestine clearances. The assessee supported its explanation with expert material showing that the age of machinery, design changes, operational constraints, power cuts and other production factors could cause higher wastage. No experiment, seizure, customer admission, or other tangible evidence was brought to show that waste was a camouflage for clearance of finished goods. The allegation remained conjectural and uncorroborated.

Conclusion: The allegation regarding excess waste was not established and the demand on that count could not survive.

Issue (iii): Whether the additional amounts collected towards freight, insurance and loading were includible in assessable value.

Analysis: The assessee produced credit notes, ledger accounts, lorry receipts and bills to show that the amounts were linked to freight, insurance, loading and special packing charges, and not to the price of the goods. The adjudicating authority's finding that the assessable value already reflected the correct valuation was supported by the record and there was no basis to disturb it.

Conclusion: The exclusion of these amounts from assessable value was and was upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether the demand and penalties based on five parallel invoices were sustainable.

Analysis: The five invoices were not recovered from the factory and their source of acquisition by the Revenue was not explained. Except for the disputed statement of one person, there was no corroborative evidence of excess manufacture or clearance under those invoices. The surrounding circumstances, including denial by the alleged purchasers and absence of supporting discrepancies in their records, did not establish clandestine removals. In this setting, the penal consequences under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also could not stand.

Conclusion: The confirmed demand and the penalties based on the five invoices were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenges failed, while the assessee obtained relief against the confirmed duty and penalty based on the disputed invoices, leaving the Revenue appeals rejected and the assessee's appeals allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal and related penal liability under excise law must be proved by positive, tangible and corroborated evidence, and cannot rest merely on third-party records, uncorroborated statements or theoretical assumptions about production norms.

---