Clandestine removal and undervaluation penalty upheld where seized records and statements supported the finding, despite later retraction.

Penalty for clandestine removal and undervaluation was sustained where seized records, computer data, account examination and employee statements established unaccounted transactions, clandestine clearance and suppression of value. The appellant's retraction of an earlier statement did not dislodge the evidentiary basis accepted by the fact-finding authorities. As the challenge would have required re-appreciation of factual evidence and no legal infirmity was shown, appellate interference was unwarranted. The penalty was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs imposed on the appellant for clandestine removal and undervaluation, based on documentary evidence and oral statements, was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The orders of the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal were based on seized records, computer data, account examination and statements of employees, which established unaccounted transactions, clandestine clearance and suppression of value. The appellant's retraction of his earlier statement did not displace the evidence already relied upon by the fact-finding authorities. The challenge raised required re-appreciation of evidence on facts, and no legal infirmity was shown to justify interference in appeal.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and the appeal was rejected.

---