Electronic evidence in clandestine removal cases needs strict admissibility compliance and independent corroboration before demand or penalty can stand.

Electronic records used to allege clandestine manufacture and clearance are reliable only when statutory requirements for computer output and recorded statements are strictly met, and when the allegations are independently corroborated by tangible evidence. The text notes that a pen drive and computer printouts were rejected as substantive proof because authorship, source integrity, and mandatory certification were not established. It further states that electricity consumption, alleged cash sales, and inadequate buyer-side verification were insufficient corroboration. On that basis, the demand, interest, and penalties were found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether pen drive and computer printouts could be relied upon as evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance; (ii) whether the statutory requirements for admitting computer printouts and recorded statements were complied with; (iii) whether clandestine clearance was established by corroborative evidence, including electricity consumption and alleged cash sales; and (iv) whether penalty on the company and its directors was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether pen drive and computer printouts could be relied upon as evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance.

Analysis: The evidentiary foundation of the demand rested on electronic data recovered from a pen drive and office computers. The device was treated as a floating storage medium, and the source computer, authorship of the earlier entries, and independent authenticity of the data were not established with certainty. The data was relied upon for a period partly predating the entry of the computer operator, without identification of who entered the earlier records.

Conclusion: The electronic data could not be relied upon as substantive proof of clandestine clearance.

Issue (ii): whether the statutory requirements for admitting computer printouts and recorded statements were complied with.

Analysis: The requirements governing admissibility of computer output were not satisfied, as the necessary certificate and proof of the relevant device and source of the data were not established. Likewise, statements recorded during investigation were relied upon without compliance with the mandatory procedure for testing such statements before they could be used as evidence in adjudication.

Conclusion: The mandatory statutory conditions for reliance on the printouts and statements were not followed.

Issue (iii): whether clandestine clearance was established by corroborative evidence, including electricity consumption and alleged cash sales.

Analysis: No adequate independent corroboration was brought on record regarding procurement of raw materials, transport, buyers, receipt of goods, or flow of sale proceeds. High electricity consumption by itself was treated as insufficient to prove clandestine manufacture. Verification at the buyer's end was also inadequate to support the sweeping inference drawn from the seized records.

Conclusion: Clandestine manufacture and removal were not proved by corroborative evidence.

Issue (iv): whether penalty on the company and its directors was sustainable.

Analysis: Once the demand itself failed for want of admissible and corroborated evidence, the foundation for penalty also disappeared. No independent material established personal involvement of the directors in the alleged evasion.

Conclusion: The penalties were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The demand of duty, interest, and penalties was unsustainable, and the appeals succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Electronic records and recorded statements can sustain a clandestine removal demand only when the statutory conditions for admissibility and examination are strictly complied with and the allegations are independently corroborated by tangible evidence.

---