Duty liability and clandestine removal issues turned on remand scope and unchallenged balance-sheet stock figures

The commentary discusses a remand directed reconsideration of duty liability on viscose yarn by reference to total manufacture during the relevant period, noting that the earlier appellate order had not finally closed that question. It also examines a clandestine removal allegation and records that the finding could not stand where the balance sheet showed closing stock not addressed by the adjudicating authority and no material discredited those entries. On that record, the demand and penalty were described as unsustainable, with no interference called for with the Tribunal's order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier remand order permitted re-examination of the duty liability on viscose yarn on the basis of total manufacture during the relevant period; (ii) Whether the finding of clandestine removal could be sustained when the balance sheet showed closing stock not considered by the adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier remand order permitted re-examination of the duty liability on viscose yarn on the basis of total manufacture during the relevant period

Analysis: The remand order required the duty issue to be revisited with reference to the total viscose yarn manufactured in the relevant year. The earlier appellate order had not finally foreclosed consideration of the viscose yarn demand. The record showed that the Commissioner had proceeded on a composite demand without separately working out the liability item-wise, and the Tribunal was correct in treating the duty question as open for reconsideration within the remand.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding of clandestine removal could be sustained when the balance sheet showed closing stock not considered by the adjudicating authority

Analysis: The alleged clandestine removal rested on the quantity attributed to clearances during the relevant year. The Tribunal found that the balance sheet disclosed a closing balance which had not been addressed by the adjudicating authority, and the Revenue produced no material to discredit those figures. In the absence of evidence displacing the balance-sheet entries, the factual finding of clandestine removal could not be sustained, and the High Court declined to reappreciate the evidence in appeal.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty were not sustainable on the record, and no interference with the Tribunal's order was warranted.

---