Clandestine removal demands require independent corroboration; an uncorroborated earlier disclosure cannot, by itself, sustain liability.

Duty demand for alleged clandestine removal could not be sustained where it rested only on a disclosure made in written submissions in earlier proceedings. That disclosure was confined to the earlier matter, which had ended in favour of the assessee, and could not be treated as binding in later proceedings. An admission is not conclusive proof, so the Revenue had to prove liability through independent investigation and fresh oral or documentary evidence. In the absence of fresh corroboration, the seized material and earlier statements could not be reused. The assessee's denial and invoices showing clearance of unfinished fabrics further undermined the allegation, and the clandestine removal finding failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalties could be sustained on the basis of the counsel's disclosure in earlier proceedings, without fresh corroborative oral or documentary evidence of clandestine removal.

Analysis: The demand in the later proceedings was founded only on a disclosure made in written submissions during earlier proceedings. Those earlier proceedings had ended in favour of the assessee and the departmental order therein had been accepted. The disclosure was held to be confined to the earlier proceedings and could not, by itself, be treated as binding in the subsequent proceedings. An admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted, and the Revenue was required to establish liability by independent investigation and by collecting tangible oral and documentary evidence. The seized material and statements from the earlier proceedings could not be relied upon again in the present proceedings in the absence of fresh corroboration. The assessee had also denied the allegation and produced invoices indicating clearance of unfinished fabrics during the relevant period.

Conclusion: The duty demand based only on the uncorroborated disclosure could not be sustained, and the finding of clandestine removal failed.

---