<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (4) TMI 11 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1363</link>
    <description>Secondary evidence is admissible only when the statutory foundation for non-production of the original document is first established. Sections 63 and 64 make primary evidence the general rule, and Section 65(a) permits secondary evidence only where the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the opposite party or another person who fails to produce it after notice under Section 66. A mere photocopy, without proof of these conditions, does not satisfy the legal requirements for admission as secondary evidence. On that basis, the photocopies were held inadmissible and the appeal was liable to fail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2015 18:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 11 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1363</link>
      <description>Secondary evidence is admissible only when the statutory foundation for non-production of the original document is first established. Sections 63 and 64 make primary evidence the general rule, and Section 65(a) permits secondary evidence only where the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the opposite party or another person who fails to produce it after notice under Section 66. A mere photocopy, without proof of these conditions, does not satisfy the legal requirements for admission as secondary evidence. On that basis, the photocopies were held inadmissible and the appeal was liable to fail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>