https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345482 Computer printouts taken from a pen drive recovered during search were treated as admissible evidence because they were seized in the presence of panchas, no cross-examination of the panchas was sought, and the director's contemporaneous statement ed the contents. A later retraction was found belated and unsupported by the record. The objection under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was rejected, and the electronic material was held to satisfy the evidentiary requirement relied on in the case. Corroborative documents also established excess production and removal, so the evidence was held sufficient to prove clandestine removal and sustain the demand and penalties. en-us Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 15:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345482 Computer printouts taken from a pen drive recovered during search were treated as admissible evidence because they were seized in the presence of panchas, no cross-examination of the panchas was sought, and the director's contemporaneous statement ed the contents. A later retraction was found belated and unsupported by the record. The objection under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was rejected, and the electronic material was held to satisfy the evidentiary requirement relied on in the case. Corroborative documents also established excess production and removal, so the evidence was held sufficient to prove clandestine removal and sustain the demand and penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345482