Tribunal rejects most of demand, upholds small amount based on physical evidence. Penalties on directors overturned.

The Tribunal set aside the majority of the demand based on computer printouts, confirming only a small demand of Rs. 58,302/- based on physical evidence (dispatch slips and delivery challans). The penalties on directors and co-noticees were also set aside, and the appeal of M/s. Wilson Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods without issuing invoices and without payment of excise duty.
2. Admissibility and reliability of computer printouts as evidence.
3. Validity of statements recorded under duress and without cross-examination.
4. Shortage of physical stock compared to recorded stock.
5. Trading of kraft paper by the appellant.
6. Imposition of penalties on directors and co-noticees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Clandestine Removal of Excisable Goods:
The appellant, M/S. Wilson Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., was accused of removing excisable goods without issuing invoices and without payment of excise duty, leading to evasion of Central Excise Duty. The investigation revealed alleged shortages of finished goods, recovery of dispatch slips, delivery challans, and computer printouts indicating clandestine clearances. The Show Cause Notice proposed a demand of Rs. 1,15,72,496/- along with interest and penalties for the alleged clandestine clearance of 1,41,72,571 KGs of kraft paper.

2. Admissibility and Reliability of Computer Printouts as Evidence:
The primary evidence for the alleged clandestine removal was the computer printouts obtained from the CPU at the director's residence. The appellant argued that the printouts were inadmissible under Section 36B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the data was not produced by the computer during the period it was regularly used. The Tribunal held that the computer printouts were not admissible as evidence because the data was not originally produced on the seized computer, and the conditions under Section 36B(2) were not satisfied. The Tribunal referenced the judgment in PREMIUM PACKAGING PVT. LTD., which supported the inadmissibility of such printouts.

3. Validity of Statements Recorded Under Duress and Without Cross-Examination:
The appellant contended that the statements of directors and other witnesses were recorded under duress and were not voluntary. The Tribunal noted that the statements were not admissible as evidence because the cross-examination of witnesses was denied by the adjudicating authority, violating Section 9D of the Central Excise Act and the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referenced the judgment in SULEKHRAM STEELS PVT. LTD., which emphasized the necessity of cross-examination for the admissibility of statements.

4. Shortage of Physical Stock Compared to Recorded Stock:
The investigation reported a shortage of 22,481 KGs of kraft paper compared to the daily stock account. The Tribunal found the shortage insignificant relative to the total production capacity and noted that no weighment was carried out to confirm the shortage. Therefore, the shortage alone could not justify the huge demand of excise duty.

5. Trading of Kraft Paper by the Appellant:
The appellant claimed involvement in trading kraft paper, supported by statements from various suppliers. The Tribunal did not delve into the trading aspect in detail, as the primary evidence (computer printouts) was already deemed inadmissible. However, it acknowledged that the appellant's trading activities could not be presumed to be clandestine manufacturing without concrete evidence.

6. Imposition of Penalties on Directors and Co-Noticees:
The Tribunal held that penalties on directors and co-noticees were not sustainable since the primary demand of duty based on computer printouts was not upheld. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including those in the cases of VISHWA TRADERS PVT. LTD. and RENNY STEEL CASTING PVT. LTD., which emphasized the need for concrete evidence to support allegations of clandestine removal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the majority of the demand based on computer printouts, confirming only a small demand of Rs. 58,302/- based on physical evidence (dispatch slips and delivery challans). The penalties on directors and co-noticees were also set aside, and the appeal of M/s. Wilson Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. was partly allowed.

---