Excise penalty for clandestine removal sustained where admissions showed manipulation of product cost and evasion, with reduced penalty already granted.

Penalty under excise law was sustained against a company's sole authorised signatory where the record showed his admission of manipulation of product cost and removal of goods from the job worker's premises. His statement was relied on in relation to the company's duty evasion and clandestine removal, and the appellate authority had already taken a lenient view by substantially reducing the penalty. In the absence of any material infirmity in those findings, further interference was refused and the reduced penalties remained in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under the excise law for his role in the alleged duty evasion and clandestine removal was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The record showed an admission by the appellant regarding manipulation of the product cost and removal of goods from the job worker's premises. The appellant was the sole authorised signatory of the company and his statement was relied upon in connection with the company's offence. The appellate authority had already taken a lenient view and substantially reduced the penalties, and no material infirmity was found in that approach.

Conclusion: The penalty was sustained and no further relief was warranted to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and the reduced penalties imposed in connection with the excise violation remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a person is found to be knowingly concerned in clandestine removal and manipulation of excise-related transactions, and the appellate authority has already granted substantial reduction in penalty, further interference is unwarranted absent any infirmity in the findings.

---