2016 (5) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;   Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that in the absence of certification required under sub-section (4) of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the computer print be not considered as piece of evidence even though there exist collateral documentary evidences establishing clandestine removal of good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... authorities for sustaining the allegation of clandestine removal of goods. The assessee had asked for cross-examination of the persons whose statements were recorded by the Department. The assessee was granted selective cross-examination permitting cross-examination of four witnesses. Such witnesses disowned their statements. Commissioner (Appeals), however, sustained the allegation on the basis ....