Voluntary statements and stock discrepancies can prove de facto control, clandestine removal, and liability under excise rules.

Voluntary statements, when corroborated by surrounding evidence and not credibly retracted, may establish de facto control over excise units and fasten liability on the real operator rather than a nominal agent. In the described matter, the appellant's control of the match units, together with the statements of connected persons, supported rejection of the plea that he was only a power of attorney holder. Shortages in stock, discrepancies in records, and seizure of matches with forged banderols were treated as indicators of clandestine removal, supporting duty demand, penalty, and invocation of the excise rule.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's statement was voluntary and whether he could avoid liability by claiming to be only a power of attorney holder, and (ii) whether the shortages, discrepancies and seizure of matches with spurious banderols established clandestine removal and justified invocation of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's statement was voluntary and whether he could avoid liability by claiming to be only a power of attorney holder.

Analysis: The statement dated 17-11-1980 was found to have been given voluntarily, and the retraction was rejected. The evidence on record, including the statements of the licensees, managers and connected persons, established that the appellant was in control of the four match units and was the real person running them. On that basis, the plea that he was merely an unauthorised agent and could not be fastened with liability under the relevant rules was not accepted.

Conclusion: The appellant was held liable as the de facto owner and his challenge to the evidentiary use of the statement failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the shortages, discrepancies and seizure of matches with spurious banderols established clandestine removal and justified invocation of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The shortage in banderol stock, shortage of matches on physical verification, discrepancies between bank statements and excise records, and seizure of matches bearing fake banderols were treated as consistent indicators of clandestine removal. The use of forged banderols was held to be proved by the seizure itself, and the demand and penalties were supported by the established irregularities.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine removal and use of forged banderols was upheld, and Rule 9(2) was correctly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained in full and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Voluntary statements, when supported by surrounding evidence and not credibly retracted, can sustain findings of de facto control and liability; shortages, account discrepancies and seizure of goods with fake banderols can constitute sufficient evidence of clandestine removal warranting duty demand and penal action under the excise rules.

---