Natural justice and clandestine removal: belated fabrication plea failed, duty demand sustained, and penalty was reduced.

A belated, unparticularised allegation that the accountant's note book was fabricated did not establish breach of natural justice, because the appellants themselves produced the document, one partner's signature appeared on it, and the entries were corroborated by the other partner's statement and earlier defence material. The refusal to summon the accountant therefore caused no prejudice. Clandestine removal of biscuits was also supported by the intercepted consignment, seized records, private note book, purchaser statements and the partner's admission; the recorded sales exceeded the small-scale exemption limit under Notification No. 80/80-CE, so duty was payable on the excess clearances. The duty demand was sustained, while the penalty was reduced as excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of cross-examination of the accountant and non-summoning of the scribe vitiated the excise proceedings for breach of natural justice; (ii) Whether the evidence established clandestine removal of biscuits beyond the small-scale exemption limit and justified the duty demand, with only the quantum of penalty remaining for consideration.

Issue (i): Whether denial of cross-examination of the accountant and non-summoning of the scribe vitiated the excise proceedings for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The appellants had produced the private note book themselves and one partner's signature appeared on it. The entries were corroborated by the other partner's statement, and no timely or specific plea of fabrication by the accountant was raised in the reply, in the cross-examination of the investigating officer, or in the earlier defence filings. The challenge was raised only at a later stage and was treated as an afterthought. On these facts, the refusal to summon the accountant did not cause prejudice or violate natural justice.

Conclusion: The contention of violation of natural justice was rejected and the proceedings were held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established clandestine removal of biscuits beyond the small-scale exemption limit and justified the duty demand, with only the quantum of penalty remaining for consideration.

Analysis: The intercepted consignment, seized records, private note book, statements of purchasers, and the partner's admission collectively supported clandestine clearances. The recorded sales crossed the exemption limit under Notification No. 80/80-CE, making the excess removals exigible to duty. The Tribunal accepted the demand of duty, but considered the penalty excessive in the circumstances and reduced it.

Conclusion: The duty demand was sustained and the penalty was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits of the duty demand, but the penalty was scaled down from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated and unparticularised allegation of fabrication, unsupported by the earlier defence and contradicted by admitted documents and corroborative statements, does not establish breach of natural justice or defeat a finding of clandestine removal.

---