Clandestine clearance and Modvat credit dispute upheld on private records, corroborative statements and testing evidence.

Denial of natural justice was rejected because the record showed that seized documents and calculation sheets had already been supplied and multiple personal hearings had been granted. The demand for duty on clandestine clearances was sustained where private registers, loose sheets, statutory discrepancies and recipient statements corroborated unaccounted removals without duty payment. Reversal of Modvat credit was also upheld because chemical testing showed that the claimed inputs were absent in the finished goods, supporting wrongful availment of credit. The demand, credit reversal and penalties were therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the denial of copies of seized records and calculation sheets vitiated the adjudication for breach of natural justice; (ii) whether the demand for duty on clandestine clearances and the reversal of Modvat credit were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the denial of copies of seized records and calculation sheets vitiated the adjudication for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The order records that copies of the seized documents had already been supplied and that photocopies of the calculation sheets were handed over earlier. Personal hearings were also granted on multiple dates. On that factual basis, the complaint that the appellant had been denied the material relied upon was found untenable.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for duty on clandestine clearances and the reversal of Modvat credit were sustainable.

Analysis: The record contained private registers, loose sheets, statutory discrepancies, and statements of recipients, all of which corroborated removal of goods without accounting and without payment of duty. The duty demand was quantified on the basis of the assessee's own private records. As regards Modvat credit, chemical testing showed that the claimed inputs were absent in the finished goods, supporting the finding that the credit had been wrongly availed.

Conclusion: The findings of clandestine removal and wrongful Modvat credit were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand, reversal of credit, and penalties were sustained, and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Findings of clandestine clearance may be upheld on the basis of private records, corroborative statements, and statutory inconsistencies, and a challenge based on non-supply of documents fails where supply and hearing are recorded.

---