Unretracted admissions can prove clandestine removal of excisable goods and support duty, confiscation, and penalties without corroboration.

Unretracted admissions by both the seller and the buyer that excisable goods were cleared and received without invoice and without payment of duty were treated as sufficient evidence of clandestine removal. On those facts, independent corroborative evidence was held unnecessary because the buyer was identified and the statements directly linked the goods to unaccounted clearance. The earlier order dropping the duty demand was found unsustainable, and the adjudication confirming duty, confiscation, and penalties was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether unretracted admissions by the seller and buyer of excisable goods were sufficient to establish clandestine removal and justify recovery of duty and consequential penalties without independent corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The seller's statement and the buyer's statement both admitted clearance and receipt of goods without invoice and without payment of duty. Those admissions were not retracted. In such circumstances, the evidentiary value of the admissions was sufficient to prove clandestine clearance. The requirement of independent corroboration was held unnecessary on the facts, since the identity of the buyer was known and the statements directly connected the goods with unaccounted removal. The earlier appellate order dropping the demand was therefore found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue. The order dropping the demand was set aside and the adjudication order confirming duty, confiscation, and penalties was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Clear and unretracted admissions by both the person who cleared excisable goods and the person who received them can, by themselves, establish clandestine removal and dispense with the need for further corroborative evidence.

---