Clandestine removal needs affirmative evidence; escalation charges are taxable in assessable value, with duty recomputed on a cum-duty basis.

Clandestine removal cannot be established merely from balance-sheet entries; affirmative evidence of excess manufacture, unaccounted clearances, or related flow of funds is required, so penalties and confiscation based only on such entries do not survive. Contractual escalation charges are includible in assessable value, but duty must be recomputed on the actual amount received on a cum-duty basis where the department was aware of the arrangement and no suppression or intent to evade is shown. The matter is remanded only for recomputation on escalation charges.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand and penalties based on alleged clandestine removal of pipes could be sustained merely on the figures reflected in the balance sheet; (ii) whether escalation charges received under the contract were includible in assessable value, and whether the connected penalty and confiscation could survive.

Issue (i): Whether the demand and penalties based on alleged clandestine removal of pipes could be sustained merely on the figures reflected in the balance sheet.

Analysis: The demand was founded only on balance-sheet figures, while the assessee produced statutory records and a plausible explanation that the figures did not represent actual clearances. The record contained no independent evidence of excess manufacture, unaccounted clearance, raw material inflow, or flow back of funds. In a charge of clandestine removal, the burden lies on Revenue to establish the allegation by affirmative evidence, and a mere accounting discrepancy is insufficient.

Conclusion: The demand on alleged clandestine removal was not sustainable, and the related penalties and confiscation based on that demand could not stand. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether escalation charges received under the contract were includible in assessable value, and whether the connected penalty and confiscation could survive.

Analysis: Under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, escalation charges form part of the assessable value. However, the amount actually received had to be taken for reworking the duty, and it was to be treated as cum-duty. Since the department was aware of the contractual arrangement and escalation component, the element of suppression or intent to evade was absent.

Conclusion: Escalation charges were includible for valuation, but the duty was required to be recomputed on the actual amount received as cum-duty. The penalty on this count, the confiscation, and the partner's penalty were set aside. The finding is partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The demand for clandestine removal was deleted, the ancillary penalties and confiscation were set aside, and the matter was remanded only for recomputation of duty on escalation charges on a cum-duty basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine removal cannot be sustained without affirmative evidence beyond balance-sheet entries, while contractual escalation receipts are includible in assessable value and, where duty has to be recomputed, the actual receipt must be treated on a cum-duty basis in the absence of suppression or intent to evade.

---