https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94021 The CESTAT, by majority, allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for consequential orders. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to satisfy statutory conditions of s.36B CEA, 1944 for admissibility of computer-derived evidence: laptops and pen-drives were opened years after seizure, computer printouts were uncertified, and the Director's signatures did not constitute the required certification. Physical and digital evidence must independently meet ss.36A/36B; here the digital material, on which the demand predominantly rested, lacked evidentiary value. Insufficient corroborative evidence and failure to counter production-capacity assertions proved fatal to the Revenue's case. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:07 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94021 The CESTAT, by majority, allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for consequential orders. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to satisfy statutory conditions of s.36B CEA, 1944 for admissibility of computer-derived evidence: laptops and pen-drives were opened years after seizure, computer printouts were uncertified, and the Director's signatures did not constitute the required certification. Physical and digital evidence must independently meet ss.36A/36B; here the digital material, on which the demand predominantly rested, lacked evidentiary value. Insufficient corroborative evidence and failure to counter production-capacity assertions proved fatal to the Revenue's case. Highlights Central Excise Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:56:07 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94021