Clandestine removal proved through documents, admissions and corroboration, sustaining excise demand, confiscation and penalties.

Central excise demand, confiscation and penalties were sustained on evidence of clandestine removal supported by incriminating documents, unrecorded manufacturing activity, admissions by the proprietor, and corroboration from buyers and the driver. The use of kachchi parchis for transport and payment further supported the finding of clearance outside statutory records. Proceedings under the Commercial Tax Act were held not to affect the excise case because the excise demand rested on independent evidence. The admissions were not retracted, and the surrounding material was treated as sufficient to establish unaccounted manufacture and removal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty, penalty and confiscation were sustainable on the basis of the evidence of clandestine removal and use of kachchi parchis.

Analysis: The record showed recovery of incriminating documents, manufacturing activity under the brand name of others, statements of the proprietor admitting clearance of goods without accounting in statutory records, corroboration from buyers and the driver, and use of kachchi parchis for transport and payment. The dropping of proceedings under the Commercial Tax Act did not affect the excise proceedings, which stood on independent evidence. The admissions were not retracted and the surrounding materials fully supported the finding of unaccounted manufacture and removal.

Conclusion: The demand, confiscation and penalties were upheld and the appeals were dismissed.

---