https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72165 Seized documentary material and a contemporaneous, un-retracted statement can support a finding of clandestine removal of excisable goods when the surrounding circumstances corroborate the entries. The pocket diary entries were explained by the maker as reflecting manufacture and removal of the firm's goods, were attested by persons connected with the firm, and were later affirmed by a partner's communication. Section 36A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 gave the seized document a presumption of truth unless rebutted. Because the assessee produced no credible evidence to show the diary was unrelated to the firm or that the removals were duly accounted for, the department was not required to investigate every entry or customer separately. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2011 17:35:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72165 Seized documentary material and a contemporaneous, un-retracted statement can support a finding of clandestine removal of excisable goods when the surrounding circumstances corroborate the entries. The pocket diary entries were explained by the maker as reflecting manufacture and removal of the firm's goods, were attested by persons connected with the firm, and were later affirmed by a partner's communication. Section 36A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 gave the seized document a presumption of truth unless rebutted. Because the assessee produced no credible evidence to show the diary was unrelated to the firm or that the removals were duly accounted for, the department was not required to investigate every entry or customer separately. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72165