Clandestine removal of unaccounted excisable goods sustained duty demand, while penalties required proof of active involvement.

Unaccounted excisable goods, unsupported claims of lawful receipt, and failure to produce duty-paying documents justified an inference of clandestine manufacture and removal; the duty demand and confiscation were sustained. Personal penalties on the two trading-unit proprietors were set aside because active involvement in duty evasion was not established. The transport proprietor's admitted use of G.R. books for movement of goods supported a penalty, but the circumstances warranted reduction rather than full affirmation. The appeals thus succeeded only in part, with the substantive duty liability maintained and only some penalties deleted or reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty and confiscation were sustainable on the finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. (ii) Whether the penalties imposed on the co-noticees and the transport proprietor were justified in full.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of duty and confiscation were sustainable on the finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods.

Analysis: The goods were found unaccounted, the appellants failed to produce duty-paying documents, and the plea that the goods belonged to other units or were received from outside manufacturers was not substantiated. The absence of proper accounting for raw materials and the failure to explain the status of the distillation plant and the stock discrepancy supported the conclusion that production and removal had been carried out clandestinely. On these facts, the duty demand and confiscation were upheld.

Conclusion: The duty demand and confiscation were sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed on the co-noticees and the transport proprietor were justified in full.

Analysis: The record did not establish active involvement of the proprietors of the two trading units in the evasion of duty, so their penalties could not be sustained. As regards the transport proprietor, the use of G.R. books for covering the movement of goods was admitted, but the overall circumstances justified reduction rather than full affirmation of the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalties on the two proprietors were set aside and the penalty on the transport proprietor was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only in part: the core duty demand and confiscation were maintained, while some personal penalties were deleted and one penalty was reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are found unaccounted and the assessee fails to prove duty payment or lawful receipt, clandestine manufacture and removal may be inferred and the duty demand upheld; personal penalties require proof of active involvement, and may be set aside or reduced if such involvement is not established.

---