Duty quantification and double confirmation on provisionally released goods; main demand upheld, seized-goods demand remanded.

Duty quantification based on actual production and clearance data was upheld where the appellant failed to produce reliable evidence to dislodge the departmental basis of 4 kgs. of Potassium Chlorate per 100 match units; the main-period demand therefore stood. However, duty could not be confirmed again on match bundles that had already been provisionally released and cleared on payment of duty, and the related redemption fine was unwarranted; that limited issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the duty demand for the main period could be reduced by adopting 5 kgs. of Potassium Chlorate instead of 4 kgs. per 100 match units; (ii) whether duty and redemption fine could again be confirmed on the seized match bundles which were subsequently provisionally released and cleared on payment of duty.

Issue (i): Whether the duty demand for the main period could be reduced by adopting 5 kgs. of Potassium Chlorate instead of 4 kgs. per 100 match units.

Analysis: The duty was worked out on the basis of actual production and clearance data for the relevant period, with the quantity of Potassium Chlorate consumed being correlated to the finished goods manufactured. The appellant did not produce reliable evidence to dislodge the finding that 4 kgs. per 100 units was the correct basis for quantification. A mere reference to an earlier statement was insufficient to displace the departmental computation.

Conclusion: The challenge to the duty quantification failed, and the demand for the main period was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether duty and redemption fine could again be confirmed on the seized match bundles which were subsequently provisionally released and cleared on payment of duty.

Analysis: The seized bundles had been provisionally released and were later cleared on payment of duty. In those circumstances, a second confirmation of duty on the same goods could not be sustained. The redemption fine imposed in relation to those goods was also found unwarranted. The matter on this limited aspect required fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The duty demand on the seized goods and the redemption fine were set aside and the issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The main duty demand and penalty were sustained, while the demand relating to the seized goods and the connected redemption fine were interfered with and remitted for reconsideration.

---