Clandestine removal proven by notebooks, challans and admissions, with demand and penalty sustained subject to limited overlap verification.

Documentary evidence, including a private notebook, duplicate challans, register discrepancies, stock shortage, and admissions by the Supervisor and Director, was held sufficient to establish clandestine removal of excisable goods and sustain the demand, penalty and interest. The Tribunal treated the belated retraction of those statements as an afterthought and found that the assessee had not displaced the evidentiary burden. However, the limited contention that the demand attributed to stock shortage may overlap with the overall demand required record verification, so that narrow issue was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty on account of alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods were sustainable, and whether the limited objection regarding overlapping demand on shortage of stock required verification.

Analysis: The record showed seizure of a private notebook and duplicate challans from the premises, discrepancy with statutory registers, shortage of finished goods, and statements of the Supervisor and Director admitting removal without duty payment. The retraction of those statements after a long delay was treated as an afterthought. The Tribunal held that the documentary material and statements constituted sufficient corroboration to sustain the finding of clandestine removal, and that the assessee had not displaced the evidentiary burden. However, on the specific contention that the demand of Rs. 30,725/- on shortage overlapped with the total demand, the matter required verification from the records.

Conclusion: The impugned demand, penalty, and interest were upheld in substance, but the limited issue of overlapping demand was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for verification.

---