Clandestine removal based on seized records was sustained, and no natural justice breach arose from abandoned cross-examination requests.

Clandestine removal was upheld where seized private press books contained discrepant production records, giving documentary basis for inferring higher production than shown in the excise account. The finding was not based on suspicion, but on materials recovered from the mill, so the challenge for want of evidence failed. The adjudication was not invalidated by non-production of the officers who supplied the initial information, because that information only triggered the search and the decision rested on seized records, not on the original tip. No breach of natural justice was established, as the request for cross-examination was not pressed at the hearing and could not later be relied on as procedural unfairness.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the penalty and duty demand could be sustained on the basis of the seized press books and the inference of clandestine removal; (ii) whether the failure to produce the information-giving officers or other departmental witnesses for cross-examination vitiated the adjudication; (iii) whether any breach of natural justice was established by the refusal, or alleged refusal, to allow cross-examination.

Issue (i): whether the penalty and duty demand could be sustained on the basis of the seized press books and the inference of clandestine removal.

Analysis: The adjudication rested on two sets of private records recovered from the mill, one of which showed production consistent with the excise account and the other of which disclosed substantially higher production. The discrepancy between the records furnished documentary material from which an inference of clandestine removal could properly be drawn. The fact-finding authority was not acting on mere suspicion or conjecture, but on materials found in the petitioner's possession.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine removal was sustainable and the challenge on the ground of absence of evidence failed.

Issue (ii): whether the failure to produce the information-giving officers or other departmental witnesses for cross-examination vitiated the adjudication.

Analysis: The information received by the department was only the basis for the search. The adjudication was founded on the materials seized during search and seizure, not on the original information itself. In those circumstances, non-production of the officers who supplied the information did not affect the validity of the decision.

Conclusion: The adjudication was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (iii): whether any breach of natural justice was established by the refusal, or alleged refusal, to allow cross-examination.

Analysis: Although a request for cross-examination had been mentioned in the written application, the record showed that the request was not pressed at the hearing. Where the party itself abandoned the demand for examination of witnesses, it could not later complain that the proceedings were unfair for want of cross-examination.

Conclusion: No breach of natural justice was established.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order was upheld because the findings were based on documentary material, and the claimed procedural unfairness was not made out.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental finding supported by seized documentary evidence will not be interfered with on the ground of want of evidence, and a party that does not press for cross-examination at the hearing cannot later rely on that omission as a breach of natural justice.

---