https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118533 Private records seized from the assessee's premises, supported by the admission of its representative, were sufficient to establish clandestine removal; the statutory presumption under Section 36A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied and was not rebutted, so the duty demand and interest were sustained, subject to reduction for the portion of duty already shown as paid. The plea of breach of natural justice failed because several hearing opportunities had been given and no prejudice was shown, so absence of a further personal hearing did not vitiate the adjudication. Penalty for clandestine removal was upheld but reduced, while the additional penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:28:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118533 Private records seized from the assessee's premises, supported by the admission of its representative, were sufficient to establish clandestine removal; the statutory presumption under Section 36A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied and was not rebutted, so the duty demand and interest were sustained, subject to reduction for the portion of duty already shown as paid. The plea of breach of natural justice failed because several hearing opportunities had been given and no prejudice was shown, so absence of a further personal hearing did not vitiate the adjudication. Penalty for clandestine removal was upheld but reduced, while the additional penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118533