Clandestine removal proved by private records and admissions; penalty law applies prospectively, and Rule 209A needs knowledge.

Clandestine manufacture and removal of processed fabrics were held proved through recovered private records, corroborating statements, and factory records, so the duty demand was sustained. Penal and confiscatory consequences under the Additional Duties of Excise Act could not be applied for the period before May 1994 because the amendment operated prospectively; penalty for the later period was confined to the duty evaded and confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery was found unwarranted. Under Rule 209A, personal penalty required knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation: penalties against the directors were retained in reduced form, while those against the manager and authorised signatory were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether clandestine manufacture and removal of processed fabrics and the consequential duty demand were proved on the basis of recovered private records, statements, and corroborative material; (ii) whether penalty and confiscation could be sustained for the period prior to May 1994 under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, and how the penalty was to be worked out thereafter; and (iii) whether the personal penalties on the managerial personnel and authorised signatory were sustainable under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): whether clandestine manufacture and removal of processed fabrics and the consequential duty demand were proved on the basis of recovered private records, statements, and corroborative material.

Analysis: The evidence did not rest merely on documents recovered from a third party. The recovered bills and production-related papers were corroborated by statements of the contractor, the dying and finishing master, the grey supervisor, the manager, and the office records found at the factory premises. The admissions showed receipt, verification, internal circulation, and payment against those bills, along with material indicating unaccounted processing and removal.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine removal was sustained and the duty demands were upheld.

Issue (ii): whether penalty and confiscation could be sustained for the period prior to May 1994 under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, and how the penalty was to be worked out thereafter.

Analysis: Penal and confiscatory consequences under the said Act were not available for the earlier period, and the later amendment introducing such liability operated prospectively. Accordingly, no penalty could be imposed for the period before May 1994. For the subsequent period, the penalty had to be confined to the duty evaded during the operative penal period. The confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery was also found unwarranted in the circumstances.

Conclusion: Penalty for the period prior to May 1994 was set aside, the penalty for the later period was left to be quantified afresh, and confiscation was set aside.

Issue (iii): whether the personal penalties on the managerial personnel and authorised signatory were sustainable under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 209A is attracted where a person deals with excisable goods knowing or having reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation. Actual confiscation of goods is not a prerequisite. The material on record showed active knowledge and participation of the Managing Director and Joint Managing Director, justifying penalty, though only from the date when such liability could lawfully arise. As to the manager and authorised signatory, no active role or personal culpability sufficient to sustain the penalty was established.

Conclusion: The penalties on the two directors were reduced to Rs. 5,00,000 each, while the penalty on the manager and authorised signatory was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The duty liability was maintained, the confiscation was annulled, the pre-May 1994 penalty exposure was excluded, and the personal penalties were modified according to the extent of proved knowledge and lawful penal coverage.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal can be proved by a chain of private records and corroborated admissions, and penalty under Rule 209A requires knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation, while penal liability under an amended fiscal statute cannot operate retrospectively.

---