Clandestine removal allegation failed on facts; inadequate evidence and disputed computer printout left admissibility issue open.

Clandestine removal was treated as a largely factual issue, and the HC found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal's conclusion that the demand and penalty were unsupported by adequate evidence. Limited cross-examination had been permitted, the witnesses examined disowned their earlier statements, and beyond a disputed computer printout with accompanying material there was little evidence to sustain the allegation. The court therefore left open the broader question of admissibility of the computer printout under section 36-B, as that issue was not ative on the record before it. The appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the Tribunal's finding that clandestine removal was not proved on the evidence available.

Analysis: The dispute was treated as essentially factual. The court noted that only limited cross-examination had been permitted and the witnesses examined disowned their earlier statements. Apart from the disputed computer printout and the accompanying material, there was little other evidence to sustain the allegation of clandestine removal. In these circumstances, the court declined to examine the broader legal question regarding admissibility of the computer printout under section 36-B and left that question open.

Conclusion: No interference was called for with the Tribunal's conclusion that the demand and penalty were not supported by adequate evidence. The appeals failed.

---