Clandestine Removal and Excise Penalty: non-accountal alone could not justify confiscation, but shortage evidence sustained duty and reduced penalty

Mere non-accountal of finished goods and raw materials found in a factory, without evidence of intended clandestine removal or mala fides, was treated as insufficient to justify confiscation under the excise penal framework, and the confiscation was set aside. By contrast, a shortage of prime grade HDPE granules supported by physical verification, internal records, representative statements and later deposit of duty was held sufficient to sustain the duty demand. On penalty, the Tribunal noted that the cited provision was inapplicable for the relevant period, but upheld penal action under the applicable excise framework while reducing the quantum to Rs. 3 lakh in view of the circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of excess-found finished goods and raw materials was sustainable when there was no evidence of intended clandestine removal and the goods were not entered in statutory records. (ii) Whether the duty demand on the short-found prime grade HDPE granules was rightly confirmed. (iii) Whether the personal penalty could be sustained and, if so, to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of excess-found finished goods and raw materials was sustainable when there was no evidence of intended clandestine removal and the goods were not entered in statutory records.

Analysis: The goods were found only unaccounted in the factory premises, while the adjudicating authority itself accepted that there was no material to show mala fides or an intention to clear the goods without payment of duty. In the absence of evidence of preparation for clandestine removal, mere non-accountal was not enough to attract the penal confiscation provisions. The Tribunal also held that the lower authority was bound to follow the earlier binding view on the same legal issue.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the excess-found finished goods and raw materials was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand on the short-found prime grade HDPE granules was rightly confirmed.

Analysis: The shortage of the high-value granules and corresponding excess of low-priced granules was supported by physical verification, internal records, statements of the appellant's representatives, and the subsequent deposit of the duty involved. The appellants' later stand that the granules lying in the factory were the same as those on which credit had been taken was inconsistent with their earlier admissions and the documentary record.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was correctly confirmed against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the personal penalty could be sustained and, if so, to what extent.

Analysis: The period involved was prior to the introduction of the cited penalty provision, so that provision could not be invoked. Even so, the facts justified penal action under the applicable excise penalty framework, but the quantum required moderation in view of the overall circumstances.

Conclusion: The penalty was maintainable, but the amount was reduced to Rs. 3 lakh.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on confiscation, failed on the duty demand, and resulted in a substantial reduction of penalty, leaving the assessee only partly successful.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere non-accountal of goods, without evidence of intended clandestine removal or mala fides, does not by itself justify confiscation under the excise penal provisions; however, a supported shortage of inputs and admission-based documentary evidence can sustain the duty demand and a moderated penalty.

---