Corroborative evidence requirement defeats confiscation and clandestine removal allegations when records do not prove unaccounted clearance.

Confiscation of reconditioned batteries was unsustainable where the record included a visiting officer's report describing the goods as marked "ACME Reconditioned" and no reliable contrary evidence justified rejection of that report. The duty demand for alleged clandestine removal also failed because the department relied on import figures, sales invoices and price comparisons, but those materials did not conclusively prove unaccounted manufacture or clearance, especially where invoices could explain sales of both new and reconditioned batteries and value varied with the number of plates used. On the evidence, neither confiscation nor duty demand was supportable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of 100 batteries under Rule 173-Q was sustainable. (ii) Whether the demand of duty on batteries on the allegation of clandestine removal was proved.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of 100 batteries under Rule 173-Q was sustainable.

Analysis: The confiscation rested on the assumption that the seized batteries were newly assembled and not reconditioned. The record, however, contained a categorical report of the visiting officer stating that the batteries bore the mark "ACME Reconditioned" and that old batteries received from the market were opened and defective parts replaced. No adequate reason was given for rejecting that report. In the absence of reliable contrary evidence, the basis for confiscation was not established.

Conclusion: The confiscation of 100 batteries was not sustainable and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty on batteries on the allegation of clandestine removal was proved.

Analysis: The department relied mainly on import application figures, the alleged absence of proof of reconditioning, and sales invoices. The earlier favourable findings regarding import figures and battery plates were held to bind the fresh adjudication. The sales invoices were found capable of explaining sales of both new and reconditioned batteries, and price comparisons alone were insufficient because battery value varied with the number of plates used. The charge of unaccounted manufacture and clandestine clearance was therefore not conclusively established.

Conclusion: The demand of duty on batteries was not proved and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained because neither the confiscation nor the duty demand was supported by satisfactory evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of clandestine removal and confiscation under excise law must be supported by reliable, corroborative evidence; where the material on record does not conclusively establish unaccounted removal or the basis for confiscation, the demand and confiscation cannot stand.

---