https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336200 A statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is admissible, but it cannot by itself prove clandestine removal unless it contains a clear admission or is supported by independent corroborative evidence. A retracted and explained statement, without such support, cannot be treated as an unqualified admission or the sole basis for liability. In the absence of proof of clandestine removal, alleged shortage of molasses could not be treated as disposal in violation of Rule 57F, and the challenge to Modvat credit also failed for want of sufficient evidence. en-us Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336200 A statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is admissible, but it cannot by itself prove clandestine removal unless it contains a clear admission or is supported by independent corroborative evidence. A retracted and explained statement, without such support, cannot be treated as an unqualified admission or the sole basis for liability. In the absence of proof of clandestine removal, alleged shortage of molasses could not be treated as disposal in violation of Rule 57F, and the challenge to Modvat credit also failed for want of sufficient evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336200