https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286193 Independent corroborative material supported the excise case of clandestine removal, including search results, recorded statements, customer documents and surrounding circumstances. A delayed retraction, unsupported by affidavit and inconsistent with later statements, did not displace the earlier voluntary admissions. The High Court also held that findings in VAT proceedings on the ownership of seized documents did not control excise adjudication, which had to be assessed on evidence collected under excise law. The plea of denial of cross-examination was not sufficient to unsettle the evidentiary basis of the demand. Accordingly, the finding of clandestine removal was upheld and duty, interest and penalty were sustained. en-us Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 16 Feb 2020 08:56:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286193 Independent corroborative material supported the excise case of clandestine removal, including search results, recorded statements, customer documents and surrounding circumstances. A delayed retraction, unsupported by affidavit and inconsistent with later statements, did not displace the earlier voluntary admissions. The High Court also held that findings in VAT proceedings on the ownership of seized documents did not control excise adjudication, which had to be assessed on evidence collected under excise law. The plea of denial of cross-examination was not sufficient to unsettle the evidentiary basis of the demand. Accordingly, the finding of clandestine removal was upheld and duty, interest and penalty were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286193