Special evidence rules under Central Excise law can override the requirement to produce originals when proving documentary copies.

Where the Central Excise Act provides a specific evidentiary scheme under Sections 36A and 36B, documentary copies may be proved in the prescribed manner without producing the originals. The general rules of evidence yield to the special statutory procedure to the extent of any conflict, so the request to prove documents by copies was properly allowed. The revisional challenge failed because the order showed no illegality or perversity, and the proceedings were permitted to continue on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under the Central Excise Act, copies of documents could be proved without producing the originals in view of the special evidentiary provisions.

Analysis: The prosecution relied on the special scheme under Sections 36A and 36B of the Central Excise Act to contend that copies of documents could be filed and proved as originals without producing the original records. The general rules of evidence invoked by the applicants were held inapplicable to the extent they conflicted with the special statutory provisions governing excise prosecutions. The revisionary court's view was found to suffer from no illegality or perversity, since the special law controlled the manner of proof of documents in the case.

Conclusion: The application to prove the documents on the basis of copies was rightly allowed, and the revision challenging that order was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order permitting proof of documentary copies under the special excise provisions was sustained, and the proceedings were directed to continue on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides a specific mode of proving documents, that special procedure prevails over the general evidentiary rule requiring originals.

---