Clandestine removal cannot be inferred from a weighment deviation alone; procedural lapse was insufficient to sustain duty and penalty.

Duty demand and equal penalty for alleged clandestine removal were held unsustainable where the tanker was weighed at an alternative weigh bridge only because the recognised weigh bridge had broken down. The record contained no positive evidence of removal without payment of duty, and the explanation that the approved weigh bridge was non-functional remained unrebutted. Mere failure to intimate the excise authorities about the change in weigh bridge was treated as a procedural lapse, not proof of evasion. On that basis, the demand and penalty were set aside and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demand and equal penalty were sustainable on the allegation of clandestine removal when the goods were taken to an alternative weigh bridge because the recognised weigh bridge was closed due to breakdown.

Analysis: The only basis for the demand was that the tanker load was weighed at a weigh bridge other than the one earlier permitted. The record did not show any evidence of clandestine removal, and the explanation that the recognised weigh bridge was non-functional remained unrebutted. In the circumstances, taking the hazardous product to another weigh bridge for weighment could not by itself lead to an inference of removal without payment of duty. The omission to intimate the excise authorities about the change in weigh bridge was, at best, a procedural lapse and not proof of evasion.

Conclusion: The demand of duty and the penalty were not sustainable, and the appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: In the absence of positive evidence of clandestine removal, a procedural lapse in weighment arrangements could not justify confirmation of duty and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal cannot be inferred merely from deviation in weighment procedure unless supported by positive evidence of duty evasion.

---