Clandestine removal demands need corroboration; in-process registers alone are insufficient, while retrospective penalty provisions cannot apply.

Clandestine removal cannot be established merely by comparing an in-process tyre curing register with RG 1 when the registers reflect different stages of manufacture and no corroborative evidence exists, such as excess raw materials or transport records; the duty demand and related penalties were therefore not sustainable. Modvat credit on carbon black was correctly reversed because the goods had not been brought into the factory, but the related penalty and confiscation were unsustainable since the penal provision could not be applied retrospectively. The credit reversal was upheld, while the penalty and confiscation were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty and penalties based on comparison of the tyre curing register with RG 1 could be sustained as proof of clandestine removal and suppressed production. (ii) Whether reversal of Modvat credit on carbon black, together with the related penalty and confiscation, was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of duty and penalties based on comparison of the tyre curing register with RG 1 could be sustained as proof of clandestine removal and suppressed production.

Analysis: The tyre curing register was treated by the Court as a supplementary record reflecting an in-process stage and not as the final production record. The Board's instructions required RG 1 accountal only after the tyres were fit for marketing and had passed quality checks. The comparison made by the adjudicating authority between the curing register and RG 1, especially on a month-to-month basis, was held to be unreliable because the manufacture of tyres involved several intervening stages and time gaps. The Court also noted the absence of corroborative evidence such as excess raw material procurement, transport evidence, or other affirmative material to prove clandestine clearance.

Conclusion: The demand of duty for alleged clandestine removal and the connected penalties on the company and the individuals were not sustainable and were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether reversal of Modvat credit on carbon black, together with the related penalty and confiscation, was justified.

Analysis: Credit had been taken on carbon black without bringing the goods into the factory premises, so the credit reversal was upheld. However, the penalty imposed under Rule 57-I(4) could not be sustained because that provision was inserted later and could not operate retrospectively. On the same reasoning, confiscation of the carbon black and the redemption fine were also not warranted.

Conclusion: The credit reversal was confirmed, but the penalty and confiscation relating to carbon black were not sustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on the main demand and all connected penalties, but the assessee remained liable for reversal of Modvat credit on the carbon black.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal cannot be upheld on the basis of an in-process supplementary register alone without corroborative evidence, and a penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively unless the statute clearly so provides.

---