https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112835 Clandestine removal of excisable goods may be established through employee statements, the proprietor's admission, and corroborative seized records showing unbilled sales and suppression in statutory records; later retractions did not displace the earlier admissions, so the allegation was sustained. However, duty demand could not be quantified by a blanket multiplication of all sales by four, because the evidence showed the 20:80 pattern applied only to some parties. The computation therefore had to be confined to clearances specifically supported by statements or documentary evidence, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, including reconsideration of penalty. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 May 2012 18:56:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112835 Clandestine removal of excisable goods may be established through employee statements, the proprietor's admission, and corroborative seized records showing unbilled sales and suppression in statutory records; later retractions did not displace the earlier admissions, so the allegation was sustained. However, duty demand could not be quantified by a blanket multiplication of all sales by four, because the evidence showed the 20:80 pattern applied only to some parties. The computation therefore had to be confined to clearances specifically supported by statements or documentary evidence, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, including reconsideration of penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112835