TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of 'Un-coated Kraft papers and Paper Board falling under HSN 480443100. On the basis of an intelligence that the Appellant is resorting to suppression of production and removing goods without payment of excise duty, search was conducted at the factory of the Appellant by the Officers of DGGI, Meerut on 28.11.2018. During search, 3 pen drives were found from the worker's quarters located behind the Account Section of the factory. Certain documents were also resumed relating to the investigation. Statement of Shri Neeraj Jain, Director of the Appellant company was recorded where he stated that impugned pen drives contained data of his company and it was maintained by Shri Amit Kumar, Accountant. He further confirmed that data stored in such pen drives was actual figures of production and sales. Print out of data contained in pen drives were taken out by the officers in presence of Shri Sanjeev Singhal, CFO and Shri Amit Kumar, Accountant of the Appellant company in presence of two independent witnesses. Shri Sanjeev Singhal stated in his statement dated 21.12.2018, that data in the pen drives were stored on the direction of Shri Neeraj Jain, Director. Shri Amit Kumar, Accountant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Central Excise Act, 1944 the same is not an admissible evidence. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Harsinghar Gutkha P. Ltd., [2008 (221) E.L.T. 77 (Tri.)]. (ii) Anvar T.V. Vs. P. K. Basheer [2017 (352) E.L.T. 417 (SC)]. (iii) Ambica Organics [2016 (334) E.L.T. 97 (Tri.)]. 5. Shri Nishant Mishra learned Counsel of the Appellant further submitted that no evidence regarding manufacture of goods, receipt of raw materials for manufacturing of goods, which was alleged to have been cleared clandestinely were discussed in the SCN. The demand is based only on the statement of some persons of the factory and only on the basis of statements, no demand can be confirmed. Learned counsel, contended that in order to establish the case of clandestine removal, it was essential for the Department to adduce evidence indicating purchase of extra raw material, extra deployment of workers and also extra consumption of electricity. The Department could not produce even a single bill or invoices pointing out purchase of raw materials, chemicals etc. for the manufacture of goods which were allegedly removed clandestinely. In abs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities, information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of the contents; and (d) the information contained in the statement reproduced or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities." As per sub clause (4) of Section 36(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, electronic evidences would be admissible when a certificate is given identifying the documents contained in the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced. Given such particulars of any device involved in the production of those documents as may be appropri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5B(4) of Evidence Act, 1972. The provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 36B of Central Excise Act, 1944, are parimateria. It is evident from the panchanama, that the investigating officer had failed to follow the safeguard as mandated under Section 36B of the Act. We have also considered the judgment of M/s. Popular Paints & Chemicals vs. C.C.Ex. & Cus., Raipur, wherein this Tribunal vide Final Order Nos.52716-52718/2018, dated 06.08.2018 under similar facts and circumstances, has set aside the demand based on such unauthenticated data. In view of the above, we hold that charges of clandestine removal based on such unauthenticated data is not sustainable and are therefore, set aside. 10. It is evident from the panchnama that the Department failed to gather any of documents from the factory of the Appellant. We have also considered the following judgements cited by the Appellant :- (i) M/s. Sakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.Ex. 2013 (296) E.L.T. 392 (Tri.) which was upheld by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court [2014 (308) E.L.T. 655 (Guj.) and subsequently by Hon'ble Supreme Court [2015 (319) E.L.T. A-117 (S.C.)]. (ii) M/s. R. A. Casting Pvt. Ltd. v.....