https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403116 Electronic evidence in central excise proceedings is admissible only when statutory safeguards for computer outputs and contemporaneous handling are strictly met; where pen drive printouts were not properly secured or proved, they could not be relied on against the assessee. A charge of clandestine removal or undervaluation cannot rest on such uncorroborated data and statements alone; it must be supported by independent, affirmative evidence such as raw material discrepancy, excess production, stock shortage, transport material, buyer evidence, or cash trail. In the absence of such corroboration, the demand was held unsustainable and the adjudication was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Mar 2021 13:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403116 Electronic evidence in central excise proceedings is admissible only when statutory safeguards for computer outputs and contemporaneous handling are strictly met; where pen drive printouts were not properly secured or proved, they could not be relied on against the assessee. A charge of clandestine removal or undervaluation cannot rest on such uncorroborated data and statements alone; it must be supported by independent, affirmative evidence such as raw material discrepancy, excess production, stock shortage, transport material, buyer evidence, or cash trail. In the absence of such corroboration, the demand was held unsustainable and the adjudication was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403116