Clandestine removal cannot rest on balance-sheet figures alone, while escalation charges are includible in assessable value.

Clandestine removal cannot be established merely from higher figures reflected in the balance sheet, and a demand resting only on that material is unsustainable. Escalation charges, however, form part of the assessable value and are includible for excise purposes. Claims concerning cum-duty price, valuation, time-bar and penalty required fresh factual and legal examination, so those matters were remanded for de novo consideration by the Commissioner. The result was that the clandestine-removal demand was set aside, inclusion of escalation charges was upheld, and the remaining issues were sent back for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand based solely on the higher figures shown in the balance sheet could sustain the allegation of clandestine removal; (ii) whether escalation charges were includible in the assessable value; (iii) whether the claims relating to cum-duty price, valuation, time-bar and penalty required de novo consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the demand based solely on the higher figures shown in the balance sheet could sustain the allegation of clandestine removal.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in a similar matter and held that clandestine removal cannot be established merely on the basis of figures reflected in the balance sheet. The demand on that footing was therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal based solely on balance-sheet figures was rejected in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether escalation charges were includible in the assessable value.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the earlier view that escalation charges form part of the assessable value and are liable to be included for excise purposes.

Conclusion: Inclusion of escalation charges was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the claims relating to cum-duty price, valuation, time-bar and penalty required de novo consideration.

Analysis: Since these questions needed fresh examination on the facts and in the light of the submissions and authorities to be relied upon by the assessee, the matter was sent back for reconsideration by the Commissioner.

Conclusion: These issues were remanded for de novo consideration.

Final Conclusion: The demand was set aside on the ground of clandestine removal, the escalation charges were sustained, and the remaining issues were remitted for fresh decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal cannot be inferred solely from balance-sheet discrepancies, while escalation charges are includible in assessable value; connected questions requiring factual and legal reappraisal may be remanded for de novo adjudication.

---