Clandestine removal and personal penalty principles: duty and company penalty upheld, but director's penalty failed without specific culpability finding.

Clandestine removal is established where shortage of finished goods, dispatch evidence, transporter confirmation and statements show clearance without invoice and duty payment, and the assessee fails to rebut that case with credible proof; the duty demand and equal penalty on the company were upheld. Personal penalty on a director under Rule 209A requires a specific finding of individual culpable involvement, and in the absence of such finding the penalty was set aside. Where shortage and excess stock were admitted and the Commissioner (Appeals) had already moderated the duty, redemption fine and penalty, that relief was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand of central excise duty and equal penalty on the company was sustainable on the basis that the goods were removed without invoice and without payment of duty; (ii) whether penalty on the director under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was justified; (iii) whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in sustaining the reduced demand, redemption fine and penalty on the cross objection relating to shortage and excess stock.

Issue (i): whether the demand of central excise duty and equal penalty on the company was sustainable on the basis that the goods were removed without invoice and without payment of duty.

Analysis: The record showed shortage of finished goods, recovery of a fax message evidencing dispatch of DBP to Gupta Chemicals, confirmation by the transporter, and statements indicating that the goods were cleared to the consignee without proper excise invoice. The invoices produced by the assessee were in the names of other local parties, and no evidence was produced to show that the goods covered by those invoices were not actually delivered. The assessee therefore failed to rebut the department's case of clandestine removal.

Conclusion: The demand of duty and the equal penalty on the company were upheld, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether penalty on the director under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was justified.

Analysis: The order did not record a specific finding establishing the director's role so as to attract personal penalty under Rule 209A. In the absence of a clear finding on culpable involvement, the imposition of penalty on the director could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalty on the director was set aside, in favour of the director.

Issue (iii): whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in sustaining the reduced demand, redemption fine and penalty on the cross objection relating to shortage and excess stock.

Analysis: The assessee accepted the shortage of DBP and the excess stock of DOP was also admitted in the reply to the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already modified the duty, redemption fine and penalty after considering the assessee's submissions, and no ground was shown to interfere with that part of the order.

Conclusion: The cross objection was dismissed, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The company remained liable for the duty demand and equal penalty on the main charge of clandestine removal, while the personal penalty on the director was deleted and the relief granted on the shortage and excess stock issue was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In clandestine removal matters, once the department establishes removal of goods without duty payment through surrounding circumstances and supporting evidence, the assessee must rebut the case with credible proof; personal penalty requires a specific finding of individual culpable involvement.

---