Evidentiary safeguards for excise demands require compliant statements, certified electronic records and corroborated proof of clandestine removal.

Statements recorded by excise officers are evidentiary only if the statutory safeguards in Section 9D are followed; otherwise they cannot be used to prove the allegations. Computer printouts, pen-drive data, CPU data and hard-disk material are admissible only on compliance with Section 36B and the required certificate, failing which they lack evidentiary value. Clandestine removal must be proved by clear, credible and corroborated evidence; where the record shows gaps in investigation, no reliable proof of movement of goods or receipt of sale proceeds, and reliance on untested statements and inadmissible electronic records, demands, CENVAT credit denial, interest and penalties cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be relied upon without compliance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) whether computer printouts and other electronic records were admissible without the certificate required by Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and (iii) whether the demands for clandestine removal, denial of CENVAT credit and the consequential penalties could be sustained on the material on record.

Issue (i): whether statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be relied upon without compliance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis: Statements recorded by excise officers are not automatically substantive evidence in adjudication. Their use depends on the statutory safeguards in Section 9D, including examination of the deponents, or satisfaction of the circumstances under which prior statements become relevant. The absence of such compliance deprives the statements of evidentiary value for proving the facts contained in them.

Conclusion: The statements could not be relied upon, and the finding based on those statements could not be sustained, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): whether computer printouts and other electronic records were admissible without the certificate required by Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis: Electronic records in the form of computer printouts, pen-drive data, CPU data and hard-disk data are admissible in excise proceedings only when the statutory conditions for computer-generated evidence are satisfied. In the absence of the prescribed certificate and proper compliance with the statutory requirements, such material cannot be treated as dependable evidence.

Conclusion: The electronic records were inadmissible and could not be used to confirm the demands, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (iii): whether the demands for clandestine removal, denial of CENVAT credit and the consequential penalties could be sustained on the material on record

Analysis: Clandestine removal must be proved by clear, convincing and corroborated evidence. Here, the record showed serious gaps in investigation, absence of key corroborative evidence, lack of transporter verification, lack of reliable proof of actual movement of goods or receipt of sale proceeds, and dependence on untested statements and inadmissible electronic material. The alleged denial of CENVAT credit also failed because the supposed non-receipt of inputs was not established by reliable evidence.

Conclusion: The demands, interest and penalties were unsustainable and liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication could not stand because the foundational evidence was legally unusable and factually uncorroborated, so the confirmed duty demands and penalties were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: In excise adjudication, untested statements and electronic records cannot be used to sustain demands unless the mandatory statutory safeguards for their admissibility are complied with, and clandestine removal must be proved by clear, credible and corroborated evidence.

---