Clandestine removal proved by absence of duty documents; confiscation and penalty upheld, but redemption fine reduced on facts.

Excisable goods intercepted while being unloaded from the assessee's van, without any invoice or duty-paying document, supported a finding of clandestine removal from the factory. The surrounding circumstances and the driver's statement shifted the burden to the assessee to prove lawful clearance on payment of duty, which it failed to do. The confiscation and penalty were therefore sustained, while the redemption fine on the goods and the van was reduced as excessive on the facts. The absence of confirmation of the duty demand did not disturb the clandestine removal finding, in the absence of a Revenue challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized excisable goods were clandestinely removed without payment of duty, and whether the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted while being unloaded from the appellants' van, and no invoice or other duty-paying document was produced either at the time of interception or thereafter. The driver's statement and the surrounding circumstances supported removal of the goods from the factory without coverage of documents. In these circumstances, the burden shifted to the appellants to prove lawful removal on payment of duty, which they failed to discharge. The absence of confirmation of the duty demand in the adjudication order did not displace the finding of clandestine removal, though that omission was left undisturbed as there was no Revenue appeal. Considering the overall facts and the quantum involved, the redemption fines were found excessive and required reduction.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine removal and the consequential confiscation and penalty were upheld, but the redemption fine on the goods and the van were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reducing the redemption fines, while the rest of the impugned order was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are intercepted without duty-paying documents and the assessee fails to prove lawful removal on payment of duty, clandestine removal may be sustained and the burden shifts to the assessee; the quantum of redemption fine may still be reduced on the facts.

---