Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench and Access Business Machines (P) Limited

- - 2. we have heard the learned standing counsel for the department as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent and have perused the records.ordermarkandey katju, c.j.1. this reference application seeks direction to the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal (in short cegat) to refer to this court the following question of law:whether the hon'ble tribunal was correct in deciding that the statement given by shri ratinakumar cannot be admitted as evidence in view of the facts available on record?2. we have heard the learned standing counsel for the department as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent and have perused the records. in our opinion, the question has been wrongly framed. a perusal of paragraph 5 of the order of the tribunal shows that the evidence of shri ratinakumar has been admitted in evidence but it has been disbelieved. there is difference between admitting a piece of evidence and disbelieving a piece of evidence. non-admission of a piece of evidence means non-consideration of the evidence altogether. on the other hand, not believing some evidence means that that the evidence though admitted on record has been disbelieved. 3. a perusal of the order of the tribunal shows that the evidence of shri ratinakumar had been in fact admitted on record but on appreciation, the same has been disbelieved. this court, in reference application, only goes into questions of law and does not re-assess the evidence. the reference application is, therefore, rejected.