Electronic evidence requires statutory certification; a seized computer printout was held inadmissible without the mandatory certificate.

A computer printout seized by the Department was inadmissible because the mandatory certificate under Section 36-B(2) read with Section 36-B(4) of the Central Excise Act was not produced. The Court treated the printout as electronic evidence and applied the settled rule that computer outputs are admissible only when the prescribed statutory safeguards are satisfied, in line with the certificate requirement under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. The absence of the original computer did not excuse compliance, and oral or substitute proof could not replace the certificate. The Tribunal was therefore correct in rejecting the printout as evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether a computer printout seized and relied upon by the Department was admissible in evidence in the absence of the certificate required under Section 36-B(2) read with Section 36-B(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether non-seizure of the original computer excused compliance with that requirement.

Analysis: The computer printout constituted electronic evidence and its admissibility had to satisfy the statutory safeguards applicable to computer outputs. The requirement of a certificate under Section 36-B(2) read with Section 36-B(4) is mandatory and is materially similar to the certificate requirement under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court applied the settled position that electronic records are admissible only when the prescribed conditions are fulfilled and that oral or other substitute proof cannot replace the statutory certificate. The fact that the Department had seized only the printout and not the computer did not relieve it of the obligation to establish admissibility in the manner required by law.

Conclusion: The computer printout could not be relied upon without the requisite certificate, and the Tribunal was correct in treating it as inadmissible evidence. The questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.

---