Clandestine manufacture of excisable goods upheld where seized records and corroborative evidence supported concurrent factual findings.

Clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods was upheld where seized undeclared goods, testing and quality control records, and the production manager's acceptance of production charts corroborated actual production of laminated plywood. The goods and production records were not reflected in the statutory registers, and the plea that block-board manufacture had stopped earlier was found unsupported by the declarations and records. As the lower authorities had reached concurrent factual findings on undeclared manufacture and removal, no demonstrable error in appreciation of evidence was shown and the appeals were dismissed in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had manufactured and cleared excisable goods without declaration and without payment of duty, and whether the concurrent factual findings of the lower authorities called for interference.

Analysis: The record showed seizure of undeclared goods from the premises, supporting material in the form of testing and quality control records, and acceptance by the Manager (Production) of the production charts indicating actual production of laminated plywood. The goods and production records were not reflected in the statutory registers. The contention that block-board manufacture had stopped earlier was found unsupported by the declarations and records. The lower authorities had examined the evidence and reached a concurrent conclusion of undeclared manufacture and clearance of excisable goods.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance was upheld, and no ground for interference with the concurrent findings was made out. The appeals were dismissed in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods, supported by seized records and corroborative evidence, will not be interfered with in appeal in the absence of a demonstrable error in appreciation of evidence.

---