https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760073 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal challenging clandestine manufacture and removal charges based on excess stock evidence. The tribunal held that computer printouts allegedly from the noticee's records were inadmissible as evidence since the department failed to comply with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act. The hard disk was found separately from the CPU, with no established connection between them. The department did not produce the required certificate under Section 36B(4) or properly admit the electronic devices in evidence. Following SC precedents in Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar cases, the tribunal ruled that electronic records cannot be admitted without fulfilling statutory requirements, making the printouts unreliable as sole basis for clandestine removal allegations. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:01:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760073 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal challenging clandestine manufacture and removal charges based on excess stock evidence. The tribunal held that computer printouts allegedly from the noticee's records were inadmissible as evidence since the department failed to comply with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act. The hard disk was found separately from the CPU, with no established connection between them. The department did not produce the required certificate under Section 36B(4) or properly admit the electronic devices in evidence. Following SC precedents in Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar cases, the tribunal ruled that electronic records cannot be admitted without fulfilling statutory requirements, making the printouts unreliable as sole basis for clandestine removal allegations. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760073