Difference between admissibility and relevancy

Relevancy is a question of fact, law and it is also based on logic, but admission is not based on logic but law and strict rules of procedures of proving a relevant fact. Question of relevancy can be raised at any stage but question of admissiable should be raised at first instance of the proceedings. The two concepts are different and not synanoymous. 

A fact which is logically relevant may not be legally relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act, and so would be inadmissible in evidence. All admissible evidence is relevant, but all relevant evidence is not necessarily admissible. All facts which are allowed by the provisions of the Evidence Act to be proved are relevant; but, however relevant a fact may be, unless it is allowed to be proved by the provisions of the Evidence Act, is not admissible.

It is the duty of lawyers to decide whether to tender such evidence in the court. On the other hand, admissibility is the duty of the court to decide whether an evidence should be received by the court according to Augustine Paul JC in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Dato Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim.