Clandestine removal through parallel invoices and false records supports extended limitation and duty penalties.

Clandestine removal of cotton yarn can be established through a chain of documentary and oral evidence, including parallel invoices, unaccounted goods, buyer and broker statements, and misleading records showing clearances under a false description. Where the assessee suppresses true production and removals or uses fabricated documentation to conceal duty liability, the extended limitation period may be invoked for suppression and wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty. In such cases, confiscation and mandatory penalty provisions may apply, although additional overlapping corporate penalties may be reduced where already covered by a principal penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants manufactured and cleared cotton yarn clandestinely in the guise of hank yarn so as to evade central excise duty; (ii) whether the demand was sustainable by invocation of the extended period on the basis of suppression and wilful misstatement; (iii) whether the penalties and confiscation were liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants manufactured and cleared cotton yarn clandestinely in the guise of hank yarn so as to evade central excise duty.

Analysis: The evidence relied upon included the energy audit report, TNEB correspondence, seized diaries, parallel invoices, unaudited delivery vouchers, notebook entries, statements of buyers and brokers, and seizure of unaccounted goods. These materials were held to show that there was no real hank-yarn manufacturing activity, that cone yarn was being cleared through duplicate and parallel documentation, and that the goods were routed through group concerns to create a paper trail of hank-yarn sales.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance was proved against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was sustainable by invocation of the extended period on the basis of suppression and wilful misstatement.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the appellants had not disclosed the true nature and extent of production and clearances, had maintained parallel sets of invoices, and had used fabricated or incomplete records to conceal removals. On that basis, the ingredients of suppression of facts and wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty were found established, and the longer limitation period was held to be correctly invoked.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties and confiscation were liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The duty demand, confiscation of seized goods, and the penalty under section 11AC were sustained because the clandestine clearances and deliberate evasion were proved. At the same time, the additional corporate penalties under rule 25 and rule 173Q were found unwarranted in view of the equal penalty already imposed under section 11AC, and the personal penalties on certain individuals were reduced to a lower amount.

Conclusion: The duty demand, confiscation, and section 11AC penalty were upheld, while the additional penalties were modified and reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of some penalties, and were otherwise rejected on the merits of clandestine removal and duty evasion.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal may be proved by a chain of documentary and oral evidence showing parallel invoices, unaccounted clearances, and false or misleading records, and once suppression with intent to evade duty is established, the extended period and mandatory penalty under section 11AC follow.

---