Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Central Excise

        2008 (4) TMI 255 - AT - Central Excise

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal Upholds Admissibility of Computer Printouts, Emphasizes Procedural Compliance The Tribunal deemed computer printouts admissible and reliable when meeting specified conditions and corroborated by other evidence. Procedural flaws in ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Tribunal Upholds Admissibility of Computer Printouts, Emphasizes Procedural Compliance

                          The Tribunal deemed computer printouts admissible and reliable when meeting specified conditions and corroborated by other evidence. Procedural flaws in search and seizure led to remanding orders for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of furnishing all relied-upon material to the assessees. The Commissioner was instructed to consider the specified printouts as evidence without additional corroboration. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of complying with statutory requirements in search and seizure operations.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Admissibility of computer printouts as evidence.
                          2. Procedural flaws in search and seizure.
                          3. Corroboration of evidence.
                          4. Specific objections to the Commissioner's findings.
                          5. Quantum of power consumption and production.
                          6. Reliability of statements and documents.
                          7. Compliance with statutory requirements.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Admissibility of Computer Printouts as Evidence:
                          The appellants challenged the use of computer printouts as evidence, arguing that the conditions under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were not met. They contended that the retrieval of data was not done using authenticated software tools and that the original floppies should have been imaged and verified for hash values. The Tribunal noted that the printouts relied upon were not from the CPU belonging to the assessee but were taken in the presence of the person who maintained them, using the password provided by him. The Tribunal found that such data is beyond suspicion of tampering and is corroborated by other evidence. Therefore, the printouts were deemed admissible, provided they were taken under the conditions specified.

                          2. Procedural Flaws in Search and Seizure:
                          The appellants claimed that the search and seizure were conducted in defiance of statutory requirements, with independent witnesses not present throughout, and the seized floppies not sealed. The Tribunal found these procedural lapses to be fundamental flaws, substantially eroding the acceptability of the floppies as evidence. However, the Tribunal noted that the files opened in the presence of the person who provided the password and those modified before the date of seizure were reliable.

                          3. Corroboration of Evidence:
                          The appellants argued that the computer printouts were not corroborated by other evidence. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had corroborated the printouts with other records, such as raw material purchases, power consumption, transporters' records, and receipts of consideration for goods clandestinely cleared. The Tribunal held that the printouts, along with other evidence, were sufficient to establish clandestine removals.

                          4. Specific Objections to the Commissioner's Findings:
                          The appellants raised several objections, including that the Commissioner had traversed beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice, relied on documents not furnished to the noticees, and used unauthenticated software for data retrieval. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner should have furnished all relied-upon material to the noticees and that the findings were based on evidence. However, the Tribunal remanded the orders for fresh adjudication after furnishing all relied-upon material to the assessees.

                          5. Quantum of Power Consumption and Production:
                          SUAS argued that the power consumption figures used by the Commissioner were incorrect and that their furnace's inefficiency and the use of low-yielding scrap led to higher power consumption. The Tribunal found that the technical study group's findings on power consumption were valid and that the Commissioner's computation of production based on actual power consumption was reliable.

                          6. Reliability of Statements and Documents:
                          The Tribunal noted that the statements of the Managing Partner of SASAI and other witnesses, along with the P&L Account seized from Ms. Usha, contained several true items of transactions corroborated by other records. The Tribunal found these statements and documents to be reliable evidence of clandestine clearances and unaccounted transactions.

                          7. Compliance with Statutory Requirements:
                          The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following statutory requirements in search and seizure operations. The failure to seal the floppies and the lack of independent witnesses throughout the search were significant procedural flaws. The Tribunal remanded the orders for fresh adjudication, instructing the Commissioner to treat computer printouts as evidence that requires no further corroboration, provided they meet the reliability criteria discussed.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal found that the computer printouts, corroborated by other evidence, were admissible and reliable. However, due to procedural flaws in the search and seizure and the Commissioner's reliance on documents not furnished to the noticees, the Tribunal remanded the orders for fresh adjudication. The Commissioner was instructed to furnish all relied-upon material to the assessees and to treat the specified computer printouts as evidence without requiring further corroboration.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found