Electronic evidence in excise search accepted to prove clandestine removal and sustain demand with penalties.

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.

---

---

Issues: Whether the computer printouts taken from the pen drive recovered during search were admissible evidence and sufficient to sustain the demand and penalties for clandestine removal.

Analysis: The printouts were taken during search in the presence of panchas, the appellant did not seek cross-examination of the panchas, and the director's contemporaneous statement admitted the contents of the printouts. The later retraction was held to be belated and unsupported by the record. The Tribunal held that the manner in which the electronic material was seized and printed satisfied the evidentiary requirement relied upon in the case, and the objection based on Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was rejected. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue had corroborated the statement with documentary material establishing excess production and removal.

Conclusion: The electronic evidence was held admissible and sufficient to prove clandestine removal, and the demand and penalties were sustained against the appellants.

---