Clandestine removal and assessable value principles: stock discrepancies and separate freight billing did not justify duty, fine, or penalties.

Physical stock discrepancies by themselves did not establish clandestine removal where no direct evidence showed goods cleared without duty and an accounting error remained plausible; the duty demand on shortage was therefore not sustained, and the redemption fine was reduced as excessive against the excess stock value. Freight collected through separate commercial billing on a principal-to-principal, factory-gate sale remained deductible from assessable value even though it was not shown in the excise invoice, so the freight demand was not sustainable. Where the record indicated inadvertence rather than intent to evade duty, the penal provisions were not attracted, and the company and individual penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether shortage and excess of finished goods found during physical verification established clandestine removal and justified the demand and confiscation-related consequences; (ii) Whether freight collected through separate billing, though not shown in the excise invoice, could be excluded from assessable value; (iii) Whether penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable in the absence of mala fide intent.

Issue (i): Whether shortage and excess of finished goods found during physical verification established clandestine removal and justified the demand and confiscation-related consequences

Analysis: The stock discrepancy was found during physical verification, but there was no direct evidence of removal of finished goods without payment of duty. The explanation of accounting error could not be ruled out. For the excess stock, the value was comparatively small, and the redemption fine imposed was found to be excessive in relation to that value.

Conclusion: The demand based on shortage of finished goods was not sustained, and the redemption fine was reduced.

Issue (ii): Whether freight collected through separate billing, though not shown in the excise invoice, could be excluded from assessable value

Analysis: Freight is not chargeable to excise duty where the sale is on principal-to-principal basis from the factory gate, and the purpose of separate disclosure is only to identify the freight component. That purpose was served even by a separate commercial invoice. The mode of invoicing did not justify denial of freight deduction.

Conclusion: The demand on freight was not sustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable in the absence of mala fide intent

Analysis: The duty short-payment and non-payment appeared to arise from inadvertence or accounting error rather than any intention to evade duty. The paid duty components were accepted along with interest, and the facts did not disclose the requisite mala fide intention for penal action against the company or the individual noticees.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 11AC and the personal penalties under Rule 26 were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The company's appeal succeeded in part by deletion of the freight demand, reduction of redemption fine, and setting aside of penalty, while the connected personal appeals were allowed and the remaining duty component with interest was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Absence of direct evidence of clandestine removal and absence of mala fide intent to evade duty preclude penal consequences, and freight on principal-to-principal factory-gate sales remains deductible even if reflected through separate billing rather than in the excise invoice.

---