https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2182 In central excise proceedings, clandestine removal must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities, but reliance on an incriminating statement becomes unsafe when cross-examination is denied, the witness does not appear despite notices, and there is no independent corroboration from buyers, transporters, factory records, or reliable recovery of invoices. On the facts, only one instance of removal under invoice No. 186 was confirmed, while the remaining 23 disputed consignments lacked dependable support or proof of actual removal or delivery. The alleged clandestine removal for those 23 consignments was therefore not established, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2182 In central excise proceedings, clandestine removal must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities, but reliance on an incriminating statement becomes unsafe when cross-examination is denied, the witness does not appear despite notices, and there is no independent corroboration from buyers, transporters, factory records, or reliable recovery of invoices. On the facts, only one instance of removal under invoice No. 186 was confirmed, while the remaining 23 disputed consignments lacked dependable support or proof of actual removal or delivery. The alleged clandestine removal for those 23 consignments was therefore not established, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2182