https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115229 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. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2012 18:18:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115229 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115229