2025 (12) TMI 443 - AT - Central Excise

Excise demand based on pen-drive data quashed for non-compliance with Section 36B; Rule 26 penalties dropped

The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur Versus M/s. Chanduka Hi-Tech Steels Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Ratangarva Industries, Sudhir Kumar Singh, Authorized Representative M/s. Ratangarva Industries,

CESTAT set aside the central excise demand raised on the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods attributed to the principal assessee ... Clandestine removal - demand on the allegation that CHPL manufactured the goods in the premises of KYS and RI and and hence CHPL has been made responsible for the alleged manufacture and clandestine clearance of goods from the factory premises of KYS and RI - no independent corroborative evidence to show that M/s. Kalimati Steel and M/s. RI are the same - maintainability of preponderance of probability on the basis of assumption - Levy of penalty u/r 26 on Authorised Representative of RI - HELD THAT:- The whole demand has been made on the basis of the Pen Drive recovered from the office premises of CHPL alleged to be in the presence of Annu Singh, Accountant, Sneha Kumari and Departmental officers. It is observed that subsequently the pen drive was connected to a computer and print outs were taken. In this regard, it is observed that the admissibility of Computer printouts as an evidence has to be strictly judged subject to compliance of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act. It is on record that the provisions of Section 36B are not complied with in this case. As the provisions of Sub Section 2 of Section 36B has not been satisfied, the hold that the printouts taken from the pen drive cannot be relied upon as admissible evidence in this case. Regarding dropping of the demand raised in respect of the goods said to have been manufactured at RI and cleared by CHPL, it is observed that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority relied on the statement of Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, authorized representative of RI, wherein he has categorically stated that they had not given M/s. RI on rent to M/s. CHPL and M/s. RI did not receive any charges from M/s. CHPL - The investigation officers concluded that RI and ‘Kalimati’ mentioned in the private documents are one and the same. On the basis of that conclusion all those clearances shown to be made in the name of ‘Kalimati’ has been construed to be manufacture and clearances made at RI and duty has been demanded from CHPL - the evidences available on record does not substantiate the conclusions drawn by the Revenue. It is observed that demand of central excise duty cannot be made on the basis of assumptions and presumptions or preponderance of probabilities. It is a serious allegation which requires cogent corroborative evidences to substantiate the allegation of clandestine clearances, which are absent in this case. We observe that the said issue has been examined by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Continental Cement Company v. Union of India [2014 (9) TMI 243 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein it has been held that 'there is no extra consumption of electricity, purchase of raw materials and transportation payment, then manufacturing of extra goods is not possible. No purchase of raw material out side the books have been proved.' Thus, there is no corroborative evidence available on record to substantiate the allegation of manufacture of the goods at RI and clandestine clearances of the same by CHPL. Levy of penalty u/r 26 on Authorised Representative of RI - HELD THAT:- As the demand of Central Excise duty on CHPL on the goods said to have been manufactured at RI has not sustained, it is held that no penalty imposable either on CHPL (Noticee No 1) or on RI, with respect to the allegation of clandestinely manufacturing and clearing of the finished goods without payment of duty. Thus, the Ld. Adjudicating authority has rightly not imposed penalties on CHPL (Noticee No 1) or on RI, with respect to the dropped demand. For the same reason, no penalty imposable on Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Authorised Representative of RI, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on him set aside. The appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (1) Whether Central Excise duty could be demanded from one registered manufacturer for alleged manufacture and clandestine clearance of goods from the registered premises of another independent manufacturer, on the basis of seized documents and statements, in particular whether 'Kalimati' and the other manufacturer's unit were the same concern. (2) Whether computer printouts taken from a seized pen drive, not satisfying the requirements of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, could be treated as admissible and reliable evidence for confirming demands of duty based on alleged clandestine clearances. (3) Whether allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal could be sustained solely on preponderance of probability, circumstantial evidence and uncorroborated third-party statements, without independent corroboration and without allowing cross-examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon. (4) Whether penalties could be imposed on the principal assessee, the other independent manufacturer, and its authorised representative under the Central Excise Act and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, when the duty demand on alleged clandestine manufacture at that unit is unsustainable. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (1): Demand of Central Excise duty from one assessee on alleged manufacture at another independent unit; identity of 'Kalimati' and the other unit Legal framework (as discussed) The Court noted that Central Excise duty is demandable from the 'manufacturer' under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that where several entities are separately registered as manufacturers, the burden to shift manufacturing liability from the registered premises of one assessee to another requires strong, cogent and corroborated evidence. The Court also noticed that the law on clandestine removal demands strict proof, with reference to factors such as excess production, procurement of raw materials, electricity consumption, transport and buyer evidence, as culled out from cited decisions (including Continental Cement Company and Nova Petrochemicals). Interpretation and reasoning (a) The Court recorded that the entire demand of Rs. 16,31,40,921/- was raised solely on the footing that the respondent-assessee (CHPL) was the real manufacturer of goods allegedly produced and cleared clandestinely not only from its own premises but also from the factories of KYS and another registered unit, RI. (b) It was undisputed that CHPL, KYS and RI were independently registered with the Central Excise Department, had separate factories at different locations, separate VAT, Service Tax, PAN and other statutory registrations, and cleared goods under their own Central Excise invoices and returns. (c) The Court held that, in this factual matrix, 'irrefutable evidence' is required to treat CHPL as the manufacturer of goods physically produced in the independent factories of KYS and RI. Mere financial assistance or payments made by the director of CHPL to KYS or RI, without a rent agreement or any formal arrangement evidencing transfer of manufacturing operations, could not by itself convert CHPL into the manufacturer of those units' goods. (d) As regards the alleged manufacture and clearance at the premises of RI: * The Revenue's case rested mainly on interpreting the name 'Kalimati/Kalimati Steel/KL' appearing in seized documents and pen-drive printouts as referring to RI, and thus imputing manufacture at RI to CHPL. * The Adjudicating Authority had found, and the Court agreed, that there was no independent corroborative evidence to show that 'Kalimati Steel' and RI were the same entity. The seized documents and printouts repeatedly used the term 'Kalimati/Kalimati Steel/KL' and nowhere mentioned RI or 'Ratangarva Industries'. * The authorised representative of RI, in his Section 14 statement and in defence reply, categorically denied that 'Kalimati Steel' was his concern, denied any business relation between RI and CHPL/KSPL or their directors, and denied that RI's plant and machinery had been given on rent to CHPL. He maintained that RI was a separate proprietorship unit independently manufacturing goods. * The Court noted that no document recovered during search linked RI's factory, production or clearances to the 'Kalimati' entries or to CHPL's alleged clandestine removals; inward-outward reports and other seized documents referred only to 'Kalimati/KL' and not to RI. * Statements of Sunil Kumar Bajpai (Director of CHPL) and Bimlesh Kumar Ojha (employee of KSPL) asserting that RI and Kalimati were the same were treated as third-party statements lacking corroboration. These were contradicted by the direct statement of RI's authorised representative. On this basis, the Court held that such third-party assertions, without corroborative documentary or transactional evidence, could not be the sole foundation to equate RI with 'Kalimati'. (e) The Court endorsed the Adjudicating Authority's detailed findings that: * No daily inward-outward report or seized document contained any remark linking the entries to RI; * The seized pen drive and printouts did not indicate that the dispatch/sale details were related to RI; * Reliance solely on the third-party statements of CHPL's Director and a former employee of KSPL, in the face of categorical denial by RI's authorised representative and lack of documentary linkage, was impermissible. Conclusions (i) The Revenue failed to establish that 'Kalimati/Kalimati Steel/KL' and RI were one and the same concern, or that CHPL was the manufacturer of goods allegedly produced and cleared from RI's factory. (ii) In the absence of cogent, corroborated evidence that the goods attributed to 'Kalimati' were in fact manufactured at RI by or on behalf of CHPL, Central Excise duty could not be demanded from CHPL in respect of the alleged clearances from RI. (iii) The dropping of the demand of Rs. 2,49,70,691/- raised on CHPL for alleged goods manufactured at RI was upheld as legally correct and free from infirmity. Issue (2): Admissibility and evidentiary value of computer printouts from a seized pen drive under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act Legal framework (as discussed) The Court examined Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, governing admissibility of computer printouts and electronic records as evidence, particularly the mandatory conditions under sub-section (2) for treating such printouts as evidence of the contents of the original electronic records. Interpretation and reasoning (a) The primary basis of the alleged clandestine production and clearance was a pen drive seized from CHPL's office. Data from the pen drive was connected to a computer and printouts taken in the presence of staff and officers. (b) The Court noted that for such printouts to be admissible and reliable, the mandatory requirements of Section 36B(2) must be strictly complied with. It was on record that these requirements were not fulfilled in the present case. (c) As the statutory preconditions were not met, the Court held that the computer printouts taken from the pen drive could not be treated as admissible evidence. Consequently, they could not be relied upon to sustain the allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal. Conclusions (i) Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 36B(2) rendered the computer printouts from the seized pen drive inadmissible as evidence. (ii) The duty demand could not be sustained on the basis of such inadmissible electronic documents, and the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to rely on them was affirmed. Issue (3): Proof of clandestine manufacture and removal; use of circumstantial evidence, third-party statements, and denial of cross-examination Legal framework (as discussed) The Court applied the established legal principles on proof of clandestine manufacture and clearance, as summarized in the cited judgments of Continental Cement Company (High Court) and Nova Petrochemicals (Tribunal). These authorities emphasize that clandestine removal is a serious charge and cannot be sustained on assumptions or probabilities alone; the Revenue must furnish clinching, corroborative evidence on several counts (including excess production, raw material purchases, electricity consumption, transportation, buyer statements, sale proceeds, and linkage of documents to actual manufacturing activity). Interpretation and reasoning (a) The Revenue's appeals asserted that the Adjudicating Authority should have proceeded on 'preponderance of probability' and circumstantial evidence, relying heavily on statements of CHPL's Director, staff and certain other persons to connect CHPL with alleged manufacture at RI. (b) The Court found that, apart from uncorroborated statements and entries in inadmissible pen-drive printouts, there was no evidence of: * Excess procurement of raw materials; * Excess electricity consumption; * Transporters' records showing clandestine movements; * Identified buyers' confirmations with supporting documents; * Recovery of unaccounted cash or other financial trail evidencing clandestine sales; * Discovery of unaccounted finished goods or any independent contemporaneous records linking CHPL's alleged clandestine clearances to RI's factory. (c) The Court observed that the case rested mainly on third-party statements (such as of CHPL's Director and staff, and certain weighbridge personnel) which were not supported by independent documentary evidence and were contradicted by the direct statement of RI's authorised representative. (d) The respondent-assessee had specifically requested cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon. The Adjudicating Authority did not allow this request. The Court held that, in such circumstances, these statements could not be treated as admissible and reliable evidence against the assessee. Once these statements were excluded, the record lacked material to substantiate the allegations of CHPL's involvement in manufacture and clearance at RI. (e) Relying on the legal standards laid down in Continental Cement and Nova Petrochemicals, the Court reiterated that clandestine removal cannot be established merely on inferences, assumptions or probabilities, and that the Revenue must bring on record concrete and corroborated evidence, which was absent in the present case. Conclusions (i) The Revenue's case, being founded essentially on inadmissible computer printouts and uncorroborated third-party statements-without cross-examination and without independent corroborative evidence-did not meet the legal standard required to prove clandestine manufacture and removal. (ii) Demands of Central Excise duty cannot be upheld purely on 'preponderance of probability' or circumstantial suspicion in the absence of tangible and corroborative evidence on production, raw materials, electricity, transportation, buyers and financial flow-back. (iii) On this evidentiary deficiency, the allegation that CHPL had manufactured and clandestinely cleared goods from RI's factory failed and the dropped demand was correctly set aside. Issue (4): Imposition of penalties on the principal assessee, the other unit, and its authorised representative Legal framework (as discussed) The Court considered the provisions relating to penalty under the Central Excise Act and under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for persons who deal with excisable goods liable to confiscation), and proceeded on the principle that where the underlying duty demand itself is unsustainable, penal consequences cannot survive. Interpretation and reasoning (a) The Adjudicating Authority had dropped the demand of Rs. 2,49,70,691/- on CHPL relating to alleged goods manufactured at RI and, consequentially, refrained from imposing any penalty on CHPL in respect of that part of the case, and also from imposing any penalty on RI or its authorised representative, Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh. (b) The Revenue appealed contending that CHPL and Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh were liable to penalty, particularly under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, based on alleged involvement in clandestine clearances. (c) The Court, having held that: * The duty demand on CHPL in respect of alleged manufacture at RI was not sustainable; * The allegation that RI and 'Kalimati' were the same concern remained unsubstantiated; and * There was no admissible and corroborated evidence of clandestine manufacture or clearance from RI by or on behalf of CHPL; concluded that there was no factual or legal foundation for imposition of any penalty on CHPL, RI or its authorised representative for the dropped portion of the demand. Conclusions (i) With the failure of the Revenue to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance from RI by CHPL, the demand of duty of Rs. 2,49,70,691/- was unsustainable; accordingly, no penalty could be imposed on CHPL in respect of that allegation. (ii) There being no established involvement of RI in any proved clandestine activity with CHPL, no penalty was imposable on RI. (iii) For the same reason, no penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, could be imposed on Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, authorised representative of RI; the non-imposition of penalty on him was upheld. (iv) The Adjudicating Authority's decision not to impose penalties on CHPL, RI and Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh in relation to the dropped demand was affirmed, and the Revenue's appeals seeking such penalties were rejected.