https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406380 Clandestine removal could not be sustained on third-party documents and retracted statements alone. The statements recorded in de novo proceedings were treated as involuntary and, once retracted, lost evidentiary value as admissions or as a basis for estoppel under the Evidence Act. The department therefore retained the burden to prove manufacture and removal through independent, corroborative evidence. In the absence of search findings, stock verification, or other direct material against the assessee, loose papers from another unit and uncorroborated statements were insufficient; Section 106 of the Evidence Act was also held inapplicable. Demand and penalties were set aside. en-us Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:59:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406380 Clandestine removal could not be sustained on third-party documents and retracted statements alone. The statements recorded in de novo proceedings were treated as involuntary and, once retracted, lost evidentiary value as admissions or as a basis for estoppel under the Evidence Act. The department therefore retained the burden to prove manufacture and removal through independent, corroborative evidence. In the absence of search findings, stock verification, or other direct material against the assessee, loose papers from another unit and uncorroborated statements were insufficient; Section 106 of the Evidence Act was also held inapplicable. Demand and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406380