Clandestine manufacture proved by private records and corroborating evidence; jurisdictional objection to excise notice failed.

The commentary addresses two excise-law points: jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate the show cause notice, and proof of clandestine manufacture and removal. It states that the Principal Collector was competent to issue the notice during the relevant period and that the adjudicating Collector was validly appointed, so the jurisdictional objection failed. It also notes that private registers, corroborating statements, electricity consumption data, and evidence of unaccounted raw material purchases were treated as supporting each other, leading to the conclusion that suppressed production and removal were established. On that basis, the demand and penalties were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice and adjudication were without jurisdiction, and (ii) whether clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods with suppression of production and raw material purchases stood proved so as to sustain the demand and penalties.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice and adjudication were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Principal Collector was held competent to issue the notice in the material period, as the office could exercise the powers of Collector for levy and collection of excise duty in the relevant jurisdiction. The adjudicating Collector was also found to have been validly appointed by the time the impugned order was passed. The objection based on want of jurisdiction therefore failed.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge was rejected and answered against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods with suppression of production and raw material purchases stood proved so as to sustain the demand and penalties.

Analysis: The seized private registers, statements of persons connected with maintenance and explanation of the records, electricity consumption data, and evidence of unaccounted raw material purchases were treated as mutually corroborative. The Tribunal held that the registers were not displaced by the objection regarding cross-examination because they were self-contained documents and the relevant statements were confined to explanation of entries. On the basis of the totality of the evidence, the department was found to have established clandestine production and removal, and the demand and penalties were upheld.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal was sustained and the demand and penalties were upheld in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, and the impugned order confirming duty and penalties was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where private records, corroborated by statements, electricity consumption, and unaccounted raw material purchases, consistently point to suppressed production and removal, the demand and penalties under the excise law can be sustained despite objections based on cross-examination or alternative explanations of the records.

---