Clandestine removal and suppression of facts justified duty demand and extended limitation where documentary correlation was missing.

Seized goods found without duty-paid documents, and the assessee failed to prove bale-wise or invoice-level correlation with goods previously cleared from stock. On that factual basis, the finding of clandestine removal and the central excise duty demand were upheld, as the claimed lawful return and repacking were unsupported by contemporaneous records. The Court also accepted that repeated changes in stand and withholding of material facts justified invocation of the extended limitation period for suppression and intent to evade duty. In the absence of any substantial question of law, the Tribunal's order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of central excise duty and confiscation could be sustained on the charge of clandestine removal when the assessee failed to establish correlation between the duty-paid goods and the goods seized from the godown. (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified on the basis of suppression of facts and contravention of the Act with intent to evade duty.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of central excise duty and confiscation could be sustained on the charge of clandestine removal when the assessee failed to establish correlation between the duty-paid goods and the goods seized from the godown.

Analysis: The record showed seizure of goods without accompanying duty-paid documents. The assessee was unable to demonstrate bale-wise correlation between the goods earlier cleared and the goods later found in the godown. The Court accepted the Tribunal's finding that the receiver's report did not support the assessee's version and that the markings on the goods did not permit identification by invoice. The claim of lawful return and repacking was also not supported by contemporaneous register entries or other reliable documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine removal and the resulting duty demand were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified on the basis of suppression of facts and contravention of the Act with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The Court accepted the Tribunal's view that the assessee had repeatedly changed its stand and had withheld material information during investigation. In the absence of satisfactory disclosure and in the presence of seizure of goods without duty-paid documents, the Tribunal's conclusion that the ingredients for the extended period were satisfied was treated as a factual finding warranting no interference.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal raised no substantial question of law and the Tribunal's order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are seized without duty-paid documents and the assessee fails to establish documentary correlation of the goods, factual findings of clandestine removal and suppression of facts for invocation of the extended limitation period will not be interfered with in appeal absent a substantial question of law.

---