https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249890 On the issue of clandestine removal, the HC held that the burden to establish clandestine clearance remains on the revenue and is not discharged merely because the assessee had admitted certain facts/amounts in an application under s.32E(1) that did not culminate in settlement. The Court reasoned that once proceedings before the Settlement Commission fail, the Central Excise Officer must adjudicate the entire show cause notice on merits; the admission in the aborted settlement process cannot eliminate the requirement of full adjudication or reverse the evidentiary onus. Consequently, the Tribunal's finding that clandestine clearance was not proved was sustained and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249890 On the issue of clandestine removal, the HC held that the burden to establish clandestine clearance remains on the revenue and is not discharged merely because the assessee had admitted certain facts/amounts in an application under s.32E(1) that did not culminate in settlement. The Court reasoned that once proceedings before the Settlement Commission fail, the Central Excise Officer must adjudicate the entire show cause notice on merits; the admission in the aborted settlement process cannot eliminate the requirement of full adjudication or reverse the evidentiary onus. Consequently, the Tribunal's finding that clandestine clearance was not proved was sustained and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249890