https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431791 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. en-us Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2026 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431791 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431791