https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270598 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. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:03:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270598 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270598