TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that M/s Sri Jai Balaji Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd [Jai Balaji]., were engaged in the manufacture and clearance of MS Bars classifiable under Chapter Heading No.721439990 of the First Schedule to erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of intelligence received, searches were conducted on 22.09.2015 at the manufacturing premises of Jai Balaji, their secret office, office of Shri Vaibhav Jain, (Sales Manager) and residence of Shri Mukesh Kumar Goel (Cashier of Jai Balaji). During the course of search, stock of excisable finished goods as well as raw materials lying in the factory premises, were verified physically and excess/shortage were noticed as under:- SI. No. Description of Goods Quantity Found in Excess (Shortage) (MT) Value Central Excise Duty involved (Amount in Rs.) 1. M.S. Bar 122.94 35,97,224/- 4,49,653/- 2. M.S. Bar Rolls 9.03 2,04,078/- 25,510/- 3. Ingots (At Floor) 86.617 23,81,968/- 2,97,746/- 4. Ingots (loaded in Truck No. HR-58A 5395) 45.475 12,50,563/- 1,56,320/- 5. Billets (-) 21.75 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asked about the print outs taken by the officers from his laptop, he stated that sale and purchase data whose print outs have been taken by the officers were prepared by him from 13.08.2015. The data for the prior period was deleted after handing over the same to Shri Akash Kumar, Director; that no bills were issued in respect of clearances against which "B" has been mentioned. V. On being asked about the note books recovered during the search and mentioned at SI. No.1 to 7 of the Annexure to the panchnama dated 22.09.2015, he stated that the details of goods manufactured and cleared by his company have been mentioned in note book of SL. No.1,2,4,5 & 6 by the Accountant Shri Vikash Singhal. Note book of SI. No.3 and 7 have been prepared by Shri Raj Kumar who is working in our office. B. Statement of Shri Vikash Singhal (Accountant)- I. He is working in this office for the last two months and looking after the accounts work of M/s Shri Jai Balaji Rolling Mills (P) Ltd., Meerut Road Muzaffarnagar; that he informed the concerned parties when their consignment have been cleared from the factory; II. He prepared records in the computer on the basis of "Kant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 Rough pad S No.9- 12 Gate pass books for 17.09.2015, 19.09.2015, 20.09.2015 and 21.09.2015 S No.1347 Loose papers of weighment slips, gate passes S No.48 Eight pen drives S No.49 Three Laptops S No.50 Printout of sale Ledger for 13.08.2015 to 20.09.2015 in the name of M/s P K Industries S. No.51 Printout of purchase ledger for the period 13.08.2015 to 20.09.2015 in the name of P K Industries. 4. Relevant portion of the Panchnama drawn on 02.11.2018 is reproduced below:- 5. The main submissions made by the Appellant in response to the SCN are as under:- "19.9 That the revenue has referred & relied weighment slips (RUD-26) alleged to be resumed from the premises at Agrasain Vihar, Muzaffarnagar details as per table-VII in para 8 of the SCN. It is submitted, the perusal of weighment slips (RUD-26) shows there is no name of party is mentioned and under Head- Material, word 'Iron' has been mentioned. Thus, it cannot be said what commodity has been weighed as per RUD-26 and who is the party-not known. The department has recorded the statement of owners of weighment bridge (Dharam Kanta)-refer RUD-53 to 60 of SCN. The perusal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aptop is correct as the Department has not proved source & authenticity of so-called ledger print-out at Agrasain Vihar pertains to M/s SJBJRM. 19.13 That the revenue has referred & relied weighment slips (RUD-27) alleged to be resumed from the premises at Agrasain Vihar, Muzaffarnagar and statements of some owners of Dharam Kanta taken as per para 9 to 9.9 of the SCN. It is submitted, the perusal of weighment slips (RUD27) shows there is no name of party is mentioned and under Head- Material, word "Iron' has been mentioned. Thus, it cannot be said what commodity has been weighed as per RUD-27 and who is the party-not known. The department has recorded the statement of owners of weigh-bridge (Dharam Kanta)-refer RUD-53 to 60 of SCN. The perusal of statements of owners of weigh-bridge (Dharam Kanta) shows on asking by department the owner of weigh-bridge (Dharam Kanta) have clearly stated that they cannot say to which party it belong. Further, on asking, they have said they do not know the any party in the name of M/s Sri Jai Balaji Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Muzaffarnagar. It is also submitted that all the statements of owners of weigh-bridges were recorded at the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order deserves to be set aside for the sole reason that provisions of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act have not been complied with. In this connection learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that:- (i) Simultaneous visits at said office and factory. No mention in the SCN as to how the department came to know about the secret premises. (ii) No source mentioned from where printouts were taken. Printout not having sign of panch witnesses and officers. Laptop/pen drives were not seized. Laptop and pen drives were opened on 30.10.2015 and again sealed. Laptop and pen drives were inspected by the experts on 02.11.2018. Appellant not provided copy of the same in spite of repeated requests. (iii) Major part of Statement of Ashish Jain and Vikash Singhal are ditto, which is otherwise not possible if not dictated one. Page 1215 & 1216. The co-noticees retracted their statements and explained their case in reply to notice. Appellant asked for cross examination which has neither been allowed nor refused. (iv) Transporter ignored having any knowledge about Appellant during cross examination. (v) The average unit of electricity was 300 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave examined the conditions stipulated in Section 36B of the Central Excise Act to record a finding regarding compliance of the said Section; and (xvi) The entire records on which the Department is placing reliance to prove clandestine removal of products is the electronic record, which record is neither admissible in evidence nor can be examined for this purpose. 7. The learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Department, however, supported the impugned order and contended that the Adjudicating Authority committed no illegality in relying upon the electronic records. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has given good and cogent reasons for placing reliance upon the electronic records and the Appellant is not justified in contending that the conditions stipulated in Section 36B of the Central Excise Act have not been followed. In this connection, learned Authorized Representative place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P. V. vs. P. K. Basheer and Others (AIR 2015 SC 180). 8. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department has submitted his synopsis for ready reference which is repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....325;ुमार पुत्र स्व० दीपक कुमार निवासी 25/7 रामबाग रोड मुज़फ्फरनगर के कहन के अनुसार श्री आशीष जैन जी को काम करने के लिए दिया था। श्री आशीष जैन ने माह जुलाई 2015 से 23 सितंबर 2015 तक प्रयोग किया। इसके बाद उसने यह भाग खाली कर दिय&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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 reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether - (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combination of computers, all the computers used for that purpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....formation shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process." 11. Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines "document" as follows:- "Document. - "Document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letter, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter." 12. "Evidence" in Section 3 of the Evidence Act is defined as follows:- "Evidence." -- "Evidence" means and includes - (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; Such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence." 13. Section 36B of the Central Excise Act deals with cases where any document is required to be produced as an evidence in proceedings under the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Such certificate should be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the oper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer; (ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity; (iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and (iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity. 14. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:- (a) There m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. xxxxxxxxxxxxx 24. The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragrap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bject matter of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act is proof of information contained in electronic records. The marginal note to Section 65A indicates that "special provisions" as to evidence relating to electronic records are laid down in this provision. The marginal note to Section 65B then refers to "admissibility of electronic records". 21. Section 65B(1) opens with a non-obstante clause, and makes it clear that any information that is contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document, and shall be admissible in any proceedings without further proof of production of the original, as evidence of the contents of the original or of any facts stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. The deeming fiction is for the reason that "document" as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act does not include electronic records. 22. Section 65B(2) then refers to the conditions that must be satisfied in respect of a computer output, and states that the test for being included in conditions 65B(2(a)) to 65(2(d)) is that the compute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his purpose. However, Section 65B(1) clearly differentiates between the "original" document - which would be the original "electronic record" contained in the "computer" in which the original information is first stored - and the computer output containing such information, which then may be treated as evidence of the contents of the "original" document. All this necessarily shows that Section 65B differentiates between the original information contained in the "computer" itself and copies made therefrom - the former being primary evidence, and the latter being secondary evidence. 32. Quite obviously, the requisite certificate in sub-section (4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, a computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where "the computer", as defined, happens to be a part of a "computer system" or "computer network" (as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000) and it becomes impossible to physically bring such network or sys....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all hereafter be followed by courts that deal with electronic evidence, to ensure their preservation, and production of certificate at the appropriate stage. These directions shall apply in all proceedings, till rules and directions under Section 67C of the Information Technology Act and data retention conditions are formulated for compliance by telecom and internet service providers. (d) Appropriate rules and directions should be framed in exercise of the Information Technology Act, by exercising powers such as in Section 67C, and also framing suitable rules for the retention of data involved in trial of offences, their segregation, rules of chain of custody, stamping and record maintenance, for the entire duration of trials and appeals, and also in regard to preservation of the meta data to avoid corruption. Likewise, appropriate rules for preservation, retrieval and production of electronic record, should be framed as indicated earlier, after considering the report of the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice's Conference in April, 2016." (emphasis supplied) 17. It transpires from the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court in Anvar P. V. and Arjun Pandi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. It was found by the Tribunal that printouts were neither authenticated nor recovered under Mahazar... The Tribunal rejected the printouts... Nothing contained in the printout generated by the PC can be admitted as evidence." In this case also, we find that the parallel situation as to the decision of Premier Instruments & Controls (supra). 13. Therefore, the printout generated from the PC seized cannot be admitted into evidence for nonfulfillment of statutory condition of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944." (emphasis supplied) 19. In Popular Paints and Chemicals vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Raipur [Excise Appeals No.52738 of 2016 decided on 06.08.2018], the Tribunal observed: "15.2. Thus, it has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court that the computer printout can be admitted in evidence only if the same are produced in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B (2) of the Evidence Act. A certificate is also required to accompany the said of computer printouts as prescribed under section 65B(4) of Evidence Act. It has been clearly laid down in para 15 of this judgment that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ificate as required under Section36B of the said Act. It is also noted that none of the conditions under Section 36B (2) of the Act, 1944 was observed. In such situation, it is difficult to accept the printout as an evidence to support the allegations of the revenue. It is noted that the requirement of certificate under Section 36B (4) is also to substantiate the veracity of truth in the operation of electronic media. We also agree with the contention of the appellants that at the time of sealing and de-sealing of the external data storage device as well as the time of obtaining printouts therefrom, a certificate should have been obtained as per the provision of Section36B of the Act. No such certificate has been brought on record without which the evidentiary value of these printout get vitiated. As no certificate from the responsible person of the Appellants was obtained by the department, the credibility of the computer printout gets vitiated." (emphasis supplied) 21. The aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, which are in the context of the provisions of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, hold that a printout generated from the personal computer that has been seized can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MEMBER (TECHNICAL): I have gone through the order prepared by Learned Member (Judicial). However, even after long hours of persuasion, I am not in position to agree with the order. 2.0 From the order prepared by Member (Judicial) it is evident that the demand made has been set aside by considering the that the only evidence sought to be relied upon, is the printout taken from the computer resumed during the search of the secret premises of the appellant is not a proper evidence as per Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, while doing so the fact that case is not solely based upon this evidence but is based upon recovery/resumption documents in relation to the clandestine clearances of the goods has been totally ignored. During the search of the premises of the appellant plethora of documents and evidences were recovered which would establish the case of clandestine clearance. These evidences have been vividly discussed and relied in the impugned order. I would like to reproduce following paras of the impugned order:- "41.1 Now, I consider submissions of the party with reference to Examination of documents/laptops/Pen drives recovered during the search....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reat Retraction of statement where there was nothing to support case of appellant cannot be of any avail to appellant-It being mere bald statement, no inference could be drawn in his favour Burden of proving that confessional statement was obtained under duress and threat on appellant himself - Burden not discharged Retraction given under legal advice was an afterthought Bald assertion of threat and coercion difficult to believe Retracted confessional statements fully corroborated by documentary as well as attended circumstantial evidence Statements are voluntary and true and reflected correct facts. iii. M/s ABHA IMPEX VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY [1999 (109) Ε.Ε.Τ. 876 (Tribunal)]- Confessional statement-Retraction Statement containing factual details and corroborated by actual examination of goods Retraction of statement not justified in absence of any proof of coercion Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. iv. M/S KISHAN CHAND AND OTHERS vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH [1987 (29) E.LT. 198 (Tribunal)]-Statement - Confessional statement when detailed and corroborated by co- accused not treatable as obtained by torture - Delayed re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground alone, these cannot be discarded. The submission of the party that the statements of shri Ashish Jain and shri Vikas Singhal were not voluntarily is not accepted in view of lack of evidence. 41.4 Out of seven diaries (note books) recovered from the secret premises of M/s SJBSRM situated at 60/1218-19, Aggrasain Vihar, Rajwaha Road, Muzaffarnagar, 2 diaries [RUD-13 & 14] were found to contain details of finished goods removed from the factory during 1.8.2015 to 31.8.2015 & from 1.9.2015 to 21.9.2015. The said diaries contain details of truck number, quantity & party name. There are some entries for which bills have been issued by the party which duly match with the sales invoices (RUD-15), whereas some entries, for which no bills were found to be issued match with the entries made in Sale ledger, recovered from the laptop of Shri Ashish Jain (Accountant) as already discussed in foregoing paras. The entries found mentioned in the Notebook have also been cross-tallied with the duty paying invoices issued by the party, as well as ledger maintained by Shri Ashish Jain, Accountant of M/s SJBSRM at the secret office. I find that most of the entries in the Notebook are tall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edger maintained in the fake company name "PK Limited" for the period from 13/08/15 to 20/09/15 (RUD-12). The relevant entries are as under- S.no Date Name of the customer Item name Qty (Kg) Truck no. Bill Value (Rs.) AS PER LEDGER Ex duty involvd (Rs) 81 15- 82015 Vijay Karnal MS Bar 8875 HR58A/6146 296087 37011 162 18- 82015 Ashwani Yngr MS Bar 8860 HR58A/6146 283383 35423 254 23- 82015 Ashwani Yngr MS Bar 8835 HR58A/6146 289361 36170 482 30- 82015 Vijay Karnal MS Bar 8850 HR58A/6146 318366 39796 42.1 Now I consider the allegations made in the SCN dated 29.01.2019 on the basis of weighment slips recovered from the secret premises (RUD-26 & 27]. I observe that the referred weighment slips have details like Name & address of the weigh bridge, Sr. No., date, time, Carrier/vehicle No., Material, Gross Weight, tare weight, net weight and amount charged for weighment. On scrutiny, I find that these weighment slips pertain to either sale of finished goods or purchase of raw materials by M/s SJBSRM. The said weighment slips, are found tallied with the sale and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued by him are tallying with the enteries made in the Sales Ledger maintained at secret office situated at60/1218-19, Agarsain Vihar, Rajwaha Road S. No Vehicle BR_KG (Gross0 TR_Kg (Tare) NT_Kg (Net0 CHGS FW Date Corres. entry no./ date found in sales ledger 1249 0931UP17T 17470 05440 12030 090 11/09/2015 907/ 11.09.2015 1243 0910UP17T 17480 05440 12040 090 11/09/2015 917/ 11.09.2015 0006 1115UP17T 14400 05520 08880 090 14/09/2015 1012/15.09.2015 0625 0910UP17T 16160 05490 10670 090 19/09/2015 1123/ 19.09.2015 0621 1115UP17T 14440 05600 08840 090 19/09/2015 1119/19.09.2015 42.4 I furher find that Shri Sandeep Kumar, Prop. Of M/s Bajrang Dharam Kanta in his statements dated 12.02.2018 (RUD-53) had confirmed issuance of weighment slips bearing S. No 14 dated 12.09.2015 and 52 dated15.09.2015 by M/s Bajrang Dharma Kanta. Likewise, Shri Manoj Upadhyay, Prop. Of M/s J.K. Dharam Kanta in his statements dated 12.02.2018 confirmed to have issued Weighment slips Number 2522 dated 15.09.2015 and 2399 dated 12.09.2015. Shri An....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a 9.10 of SCN. also observe that the details mentioned in weighment slips contain information regarding Dharma kanta name, S. No. & date of Kanta Parchi, Net weight of goods (in Kgs), Vehicle number and details of Item weighed. From the vehicle numbers corresponding details of the sales ledger can be easily correlated (TABLE-VII to SCN) Confirmation by Dharma kanta owners regarding genuiness of the weighment slip(s) testifies the genuiness of corresponding entry in the sales ledger. I therefore reject the contention of the party that no inference should be drawn from the weighment slips as these Dharam kanta owners could not tell anything regarding the party to whome the said weighment slips belong. 43 Now I consider the party's submissions regarding, 4 gate pass slip books for the period 17.9 2015, 19.9.2015, 20.9.2015 & 21.9.2015 as detailed in para 6 of the SCN. The party has argued that the department has not made any enquiry from the parties except Sunny Arora, of M/s Amit Brother; Vishu Girdhar of M/s Arora & Co.; and Praveen Kumar, who have not said anything against the noticee company as far as alleged unaccounted clearances are concerned. I observe that Table-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing salary from Shri Akash Kumar in cash. Shri Raj Kumar, the third person also accepted working for Shri Ashish Jain in the said office. None of them revealed about teaching by shri Ashish Jainin the said office. Thus, I am convinced that the party's contention is an afterthought to disown records recovered from the secret premises and consequently Central Excise duty liability. Accordingly, I reject the contention of the party. 45 Regarding Table-Vi of para 7.5 of the SCN, the party has contended that it is not known from where these ledger printouts of alleged purchase have been taken. In the Show Cause Notice, the Revenue has not disclosed the source, therefore, no reliance can be placed on it. I find that this issue and genuineness of purchase and Sale ledgers retrieved from the laptop of shri Ashish Jain has already been discussed in detail in previous paras. Accordingly, I reject this contention of the party. Their further submission is that the said purchase ledger (RUD-24) does not show the items i.e. whether it is scrap, Ingot or any other thing as no enquiry has been made from the so-called suppliers. I observe that the purchase ledger has been maintained by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply in the market etc. Therefore, charge of more consumption of electricity in year 2015-16 does not support the department's allegation. I observe that in referred paras, consumption of electricity and revenue generated for 2014- 15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 have been used as corroborative evidence to support allegation of suppression of production. A plain analysis of this data reveals that in 2014-15, every rupee spent on electricity had generated income/Sale of Rs. 20.51, whereas in 2015-16 and 2016-17, same amount of expense could generate revenue of Rs. 14.79 and Rs. 15:26 respectively. Thus during 2015-16 electricity consumption per MT of recorded production of the Finished Goods was more in 2015-16 and 2016-17 which indicated unaccounted production of finished goods and its clandestine clearance without payment of duty. 47.2 The party has relied on the decision in the case of CCE, Meerut-I vs. R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 337 (All) wherein it has been held that mere electricity consumption cannot be the only basis for determining duty liability. I observe that the present case is not made solely on the basis of electric consumption. Rather, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hence rejected. 48.1 Now I consider additional submissions made by the party vide their letter dated 05.03.2021 wherein they have submitted that the demand worked-out on the basis of ledger print-outs and other documents resumed/retrieved from premises at Agarsain Vihar, Rajwaha Road, Muzaffarnagar do not belong to the noticee. This contention has already been discussed in previous paras. On the basis of statements and corroborative documents, I have already held that the referred documents resumed/retrieved from the Agarsain Vihar premises belong to the party. Another submission of the party is that the procedure prescribed under Section 36B(2) of the Central Excise Act 1944 regarding computer printouts has not been followed, in this case. Hence, no reliance can be placed on such documents. I have already considered admissibility of the computer printouts taken from the laptop of Shri Ashish jain (Accountant of the party) resumed from the premises of Agarsain Vihar, Rajwaha Road, Muzaffarnagar. As the party has not put anything new, their submission is not sustainable. 48.2 It has also been submitted that on 18.2.2021, cross examination of Shri Sarabjeet Singh, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t premises of the party at Agrasain Vihar, Muzaffarnagar, belongs to M/s SJBSRM, Date As per driver's diary, goods loaded from on vehicle HRSBA 6146 Date of loading of at M/s Jai Bals J Rolling Mills Qty as per ledger Customer's name as per ledger Page no. of Diary of Vehicle driver (HRSBA6146) 14.08.2015 Jai Balaji 15.08.2015 8835 Vijay Karnal 33 17.08.2015 Jai Balaji 18.08.2015 8860 Ashwani Ynngr 34 22-08- 2015 Jai Balaji 23.08.2015 8835 Ashwani Ynngr 36 28.08.2015 Jai Balaji 30.08.2015 8850 Vijay Karnal 39 49.1 As discussed above, sale ledger retrieved from the laptop of shri Ashish Jain, (Accountant of the party) is corroborated with the evidences in the form of weighment slips duly admitted by the respective owners/ employee of the Weigh Bridges in their statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the note books maintained in the secret office situated at Agrasain Vihar, Muzaffarnagar. The acceptance by Shri Akash Kumar, Director of the party in his statements dated 30.10.2015 (RUD-21] that some entries in referred sale and purchase ledgers be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shed goods and clandestine removal of finished goods without any invoice are corroborated with details in sales & purchase legers recovered from the secret premises. In the case of M/s Thermotech [2014(4)ECS62(T)) it has been held by CESTAT that in a clandestine activity, it is not possible to unearth every piece of evidence and such standard of proof is not required for proving evasion of tax. The ratio of said decision is applicable in this case also. In the case of Continental Cement Company vs. Union of India (2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.)], Hon'ble High Court has held that clandestine removal requires evidences of (i) excess production details, (ii) excess purchase of raw materials, (iii) dispatch particulars, (iv) realisation of sale proceeds, (v) receipt details from buyers and (vi) excess power consumptions. As discussed in foregoing paras, all the above evidences are available in this case which prove clandestine removal of finished goods by M/s SJBSRM." 3.0 From perusal of the above findings which are based on the actual documents recovered during the search of the premises of the appellants have not been contravened, copies of the same have been provided by the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be on them for which no evidence has been produced. Though, the appellant plead that Sh. A.K. Maheshwari had certain grievances against the appellant company and the production sheets had been prepared on his instruction, this plea would not be valid in respect of the production sheets pertaining to June, 2003, when Sh. A.K. Maheshwari was not working with the appellant company. Similarly in case of Somani Delhi Bench held as follows: "6.3 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Somani Iron & Steel Ltd. v. CESTAT (Supra) has without referring Section 36A, held that when private records were founds in the factory of the assessee and recovered from possession of their employees showing suppression of production, the burden is on the assessee to prove that the documents are wrong and do not pertain to them. SLP to Apex Court was dismissed vide judgment reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. A26 (S.C.) with the following observations :- "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India." 6.4 Tribunal in case of CCE, Surat-I v. Umiya Chem ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end. In certain cases, evidences have been collected and in the statement the recipient of the goods have been demanded with regards to the goods clandestinely removed. The fact that amount received against such clearances should also been analyzed and considered in the impugned order evidences in respect of receipt of raw material and consumption for production of the clandestine clearance of the goods have also been considered, also these evidences which have been not been sufficient to establish the case to clandestine clearance against the appellant. In the case of D. Bhurmal (13) ELT 1546 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "31. The other cardinal principle having an important bearing on the incidence of burden of proof is that sufficiency and weight of the evidence is to be considered to use the words of Lord Mansfield in Blatch v. Archar (1774) 1 Cowp. 63 at p. 65 "According to the Proof which it was in the power of one side to prove and in the power of the other to have contradicted". Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible for the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the opponent or the accuse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o prove that any particular person is concerned with their illicit importation or exportation. It is enough if the Department furnishes prima facie proof of the goods being smuggled stocks. In the case of the latter penalty, the Department has to prove further that the person proceeded against was concerned in the smuggling. 34. The propriety and legality of the Collector's impugned order had to be judged in the light of the above principles. 35. It is not correct to say that this is a case of no evidence. While it is true that no direct evidence of the illicit importation of the goods was adduced by the Department, it had made available to the Collector several circumstances of a determinative character which coupled with the inference arising from the dubious conduct of Baboothmull and Bhoormull, could reasonably lead to conclusion drawn by the Collector, that they were smuggled goods. These circumstances have been set out by us earlier in this judgment. We may recapitulate only the most salient among them. 36. The importation of such goods into India had been banned several years earlier, i.e. some of them in 1957 and of others in 1960. These goods, wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn peculiarities and in each common sense and shrewdness must be brought to bear upon the facts elicited". It follows from this observation that so long as the Collector's appreciation of the circumstantial evidence before him was not illegal, perverse or devoid of common sense, or contrary to rules of natural justice there would be no warrant for disturbing his finding under Article 226. The Collector's order was not of this kind. 37. In the view that the initial onus of proof on the Department can be sufficiently discharged by circumstantial evidence, we are supported by the decision, of this Court in Issardas Daulat Ram's case, (1962) Supp. (1) SCR 358. There, on September 14, 1954, that is, long before insertion of Section 178A in the Act, a quantity of gold to a refinery in Bombay was sent for the purpose of melting. The Customs authorities seized this gold when it was being melted. The gold was found to be of foreign origin and had been imported into India in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Collector of Customs confiscated it under Section 167(8) of the Act. The legality of confiscation was challenged by a petition under Article 226 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iries were communicated to the Respondent No. 1 who was thereafter heard by the adjudicating officer. Yet no attempt was made by the Respondent No. 1 to substantiate its claim regarding lawful importation of the watches........ The Customs authorities came to the conclusion that the said 280 watches were illegally imported and thereupon made an order for confiscation of the same. It is not for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to revise, set aside or quash this order, in the facts of this case." 39. In appeal on certificate, it was contended before this Court that there was no evidence that these watches had not been illicitly imported into India and that the impugned order wrongfully placed the burden on the appellants. Sikri, C.J. speaking for the Court, repelled this contention thus : "There is also no force in the second point because we do not read the impugned order as having wrongly placed the burden on the appellant. What the impugned order does is that it refers to the evidence on the record which militates against the version of the appellant had not been able to meet the inferences arising therefrom...........
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d-bringing along with him the goods in question, had greatly strengthened the initial presumption of innocence in his favour. Amba Lal's case thus stands on its own facts." 6.0 I find that revenue have been able to establish the case against the appellant in aliment of proposition of probability have outline in the above decision. Accordingly, in my view, the demand against the appellant needs to be upheld, even if, the evidence in the form of computer printout is to be rejected as held by Learned Member (Judicial). 7.0 Appeal is dismissed. (SANJIV SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) POINTS OF DIFFERENCE In view of the above, taking note of the facts that Member (Judicial) has opined for setting aside the impugned order and Member (Technical) has held in favour of upholding the impugned order, following questions is referred to Hon'ble President for referring the matter to Third Member for resolution in difference of opinion recorded:- (i) Whether the appeals filed by the appellants should be allowed as held by Member (Judicial) and the demand made against the appellant needs to be set aside for the reason that the computer printouts taken from the computer re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n from the computer resumed during the search of the secret premises of the appellant are not in accordance with the Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, as has been held by Member (Judicial); Or There are sufficient evidence in the form of documentary evidences resumed during the search operation and during the course of investigation from the appellant's premises or there is sufficient evidence to proceed against the appellant for a case of clandestine clearance as has been held by Member (Technical). These evidences in form of clearances, documents, payment slips, receipt of payment and investigations done at the purchaser's end along-with evidence of receipt of raw materials cleared clandestinely is enough to payment of duty from the appellant and also imposition of penalties on them as held by Member (Technical)." 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant makes the following submissions:- 3.1 The Hon'ble Member (Judicial) has gone through the documentary evidence relied upon by the Revenue by way of computer print outs and after going through the relevant portion of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Section 36B for short) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k). He also refers to various Paragraphs wherein the basis for the allegations is based on the computer records. He submits that the quantification of Excise duty demand of Rs.4,12,00,490/- is entirely based on the computer print-out details extracted therein. Since the author of the data has not been identified and the computer print outs are not certified by the person using the computer and entering the data, Section 36B conditions are not satisfied. Since the very statements, by way of print outs from the computer forms the basis for quantification of the demand, he submits that, with due respect, the view of the Hon'ble Member (Technical) is not correct for ignoring the anomaly of non-fulfilment of Section 36B condition. 3.4 He further submits that the period involved is 01.08.2015 to 21.09.2015 (52 days). He submits that the value of goods for alleged sale within these 52 days is to the extent of Rs.32,96,03,918/- on which the duty demand of Rs.4,12,00,490/- has been made. The Revenue has not brought in any corroborative evidence as to how the quantity of about 10,000 MT of finished goods has been manufactured and cleared which would require movement of hundreds of vehicle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and supportive documentary evidence to the effect that the Appellant has indulged in clandestine manufacture and clearances of the goods. She fully relies on the case law cited by the Hon'ble Member (Technical) and factual details elaborated by him in the Interim Order. Accordingly, she prays that the appeals may be dismissed as has been held by the Hon'ble Member (Technical). 8. During the course of arguments many decisions have been cited to the effect that in the absence of fulfilment of the conditions given under Section 36B, the demands cannot be legally sustained. I had queried the learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue as to whether there are any case laws holding that in spite of Section 36B provisions not being fulfilled, still the clandestine removal can be upheld solely based on Section 36A provisions. For this, she has sought 12 days‟ time. The Ld Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant also submitted that he may also be given the opportunity to highlight some more important points in their defence. Considering the requests, time was given to both the sides. 9. The Ld A R, in her further submissions made on 12.6.2025, has taken th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. Further, the Department has been able to corroborate the said documents with other documentary evidences, therefore the demand against the appellant may be upheld. 10. In the written submissions made by the appellant on 12.6.2025, the important points taken / highlighted are as under : ❖ The entire demand of duty was primarily worked out on the basis of print out of ledger in the name of PK Ltd alleged to be of appellant, ❖ No discriminatory evidence was found in the factory of appellant, ❖ The appellant was not provided the report of experts called for downloading the data from devices seized from 60/1218-19, Agrasain Vihar, Rajwaha Road, Muzaffarnagar There was no evidence of clandestine manufacture, ❖ The production capacity of appellant was not enough to produce the goods alleged to be clandestinely removed. The production capacity was declared to the department under ER7 Return filed by appellant. The production capacity of appellant as admitted in para 7 of the SCN was 5000 MT per month whereas during said period the appellant manufactured and cleared 4905.385 MT on payment of duty as declared in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the age or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); or (b) a facsimile copy of a documents; or (c) a statement contained in a document and included in a printed material produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as a "computer printout"). (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer printout shall be the following namely:- (a) the computer printout containing the statement was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a document shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation - For the purposes of this section,- (a) "computer" means any device that receives, stores and processes data, applying stipulated processes to the information and supplying results of these processes; and (b) any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process." 13. It would be important to verify as to how much reliance has been placed by the Revenue on the comput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 323224 40403 964 19/09/15 Sohanlal Singhal M.S Bar 6270 UHQ/0957 216271 27034 965 19/09/15 Khandelwal Shahjapur M.S Bar 17835 UP12T/5777 596346 74543 966 19/09/15 Ajay Loni M.S Bar 12150 UP17T'0931 426444 53306 967 19/09/15 Sohanlal Singhal M.S Bar 5125 UMU/4549 175580 21948 968 19/09/15 Sunil Elam M.S Bar 5000 UP14E/1902 172523 21565 969 19/09/15 Kisan Shamli M.S Bar 8870 HR58A/3652 311517 38940 970 19/09/15 Rudra meerut M.S Bar 6205 UP17/9408 215190 26899 971 19/09/15 Hanuman Steel M.S Bar 15270 UP12T/3648 536396 67050 972 19/09/15 Radha Gobind Delhi M.S Bar 8895 HR55J/7633 315199 39400 973 19/09/15 Jyoti Sardhana M.S Bar 5140 UP14AE/9614 180192 22524 974 19/09/15 Bharat Deoband M.S Bar 12095 HR55E/0123 422829 5.2854 975 19/09/15 Arora Behat M.S Bar 4145 UP17D/3455 144175 18022 976 19/09/15 Kuchhal Mzn M.S Bar 6575 UP15BT/4256 232942 29118 977 19/09/15 Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vered from the laptop of Ashish Jain. Similarly, Para 36.8 speaks of the recovery of three laptops and 8 pen drives which have been used for printing out various documents like Sales and Purchase ledgers. 17. From the factual details discussed at Para 13 to 16 above, it gets clarified that the data gathered from the digital equipments like Laptops and Pen Drives are the most important evidence, which has been relied upon by the Revenue to quantify the demand and to press the same on the appellant. Therefore, it inevitably follows that the conditions specified under Section 36B must be fully met, so as to allow these documents to be presented as evidence at the time of adjudication. 18. Towards this requirement, the point taken by the Adjudicating authority and the Ld. A R is about the Panchanama, while resuming the laptops and pen drives, being signed and witnessed by the Panchas and the print outs being signed by Director Akash Kumar on the first and last pages of these print outs. These Signatures cannot be taken to be in the nature of the Certificate specified at Section 65 B (4), which is to be given as correct „to the best of his knowledge and belief'. Akash Kumar,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity; (vii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and (viii) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity. 14. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:- (a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement; (b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced; (c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record; (d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and (e) The certificate must be signed by a person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 24. The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence on electronic record with reference to Sections 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12. ...... it is clear that for admissibility of computer printout there are certain conditions have been imposed in the said section. Admittedly condition 4C of the said section has not been complied with and in the case of Premier Instruments & Controls (supra) this Tribunal relied on the case of International Computer Ribbon Corporation - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 186 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein this Tribunal has held that "computer printout were relied on by the Adjudicating Authority for recording a finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. It was found by the Tribunal that printouts were neither authenticated nor recovered under Mahazar... The Tribunal rejected the printouts... Nothing contained in the printout generated by the PC can be admitted as evidence." In this case also, we find that the parallel situation as to the decision of Premier Instruments & Controls (supra). 13. Therefore, the printout generated from the PC seized cannot be admitted into evidence for non fulfillment of statutory condition of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944." (emphasis supplied) 24. In Popular Paints and Chemicals vs. Commissioner of Central Excis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out, to show that the information contained in the printout had been supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of business of the company. We find that none of these conditions was satisfied by the Revenue in this case. In the present case, the data was not stored in the computer but the officers had taken the printout from the Hard Disk drive by connecting to the computer. The officers had not obtained any certificate as required under Section36B of the said Act. It is also noted that none of the conditions under Section 36B (2) of the Act, 1944 was observed. In such situation, it is difficult to accept the printout as an evidence to support the allegations of the revenue. It is noted that the requirement of certificate under Section 36B (4) is also to substantiate the veracity of truth in the operation of electronic media. We also agree with the contention of the appellants that at the time of sealing and de-sealing of the external data storage device as well as the time of obtaining printouts therefrom, a certificate should have been obtained as per the provision of Section36B of the Act. No such certificate has been brought on record without which the evidentiary value of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 36B (4) of the Central Excise Act had been satisfied. 35. The impugned order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the adjudicating authority, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside in so far as the appellant is concerned and the appeal is allowed. 21. In the present case, I find that the Laptops and Pen drives have been resumed on 22.9.2015. They were opened in the presence of the Panchas on 30.10.2015 The appellants in the reply to SCN [as given in the Para 20.1 of the OIO] have pointed out that the Laptops and Pendrives were sealed on 30.10.2015, but were opened after more than three years on 2.11.2018 in the presence of Engineers called by the Department, who have submitted a Report. This Report was not made available to the appellant. While Section 36B prescribes several conditions for admittance as evidence, in this case, there is no answer from the Revenue as to why the print outs were not taken but were taken after more than 3 years after their seizure. This on its own would be sufficient to cast doubt on the entire process of handling of the print-outs. The mere signature of the Director, that too in the first and last pages of the print outs w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontention that the computer printouts resumed from the computers, pen drives and laptop in this case are not admissible evidences, unless the mandatory procedure prescribed in Section 36B is followed, the appellants cited various decisions. We observe that in the case of Ambica Organics vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus., Surat-I reported in 2016 (334) E.L.T. 97 (Tri.-Ahmd)., it has been held as under: xxxxxxxx 11. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the entire case was made out on the basis of statements of the buyers and the computer printout. Commissioner (Appeals) already held that the evidentiary value of the statements is weak. It is also noted that the statements of the 30 persons were mostly similarly pre-drafted. The investigating officers failed to comply with the conditions of Section 36B of the Act in respect of relying upon this computer printout. There is no adequate material available on record to establish the clandestine removal of goods. Therefore, the demand of duty solely on the basis of these materials cannot be sustained. Hence, as the clearance value was within the SSI exemption, the confiscat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into CD and their subsequent retrieval was not made in presence of any computer expert and, therefore, in light of the judgement of the Apex Court the said data cannot be relied upon to prove the charges of clandestine removal against the appellant. Similar findings was made by the Gujrat High Court and the Tribunal in following cases:- (i) AMBICA ORGANICS VS. C.C.EX. SURAT 2016(334) E.L.T. 97 (Trib) which has been upheld by the Gujrat High Court as reported in 2016 (334) E.L.T. A-67 (ii) PREMIER INSTRUMENTS & CONTROLS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE 2005 (183) E.L.T. 65 (Trib) (iii) JAYSHREE VYPASA LTD. VS. C.C.EX, RAJKOTE 2015 (327) E.L.T. 380 (Trib) (iv) AGARVANSHI ALUMINIUM LTD. VS. C.C.EX. 2014 (299) E.L.T. 83 (Trib) 24. We have also considered the judgement of M/s. Popular Paints & Chemicals Vs. C.C.Ex. & Cus., Raipur, wherein this Tribunal vide Final Order No.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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar person or which the Court may reasonably assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested; (b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence. 28. A comparison of the Section of 36A and Section 36B, clarifies that while Section 36A deals with the situation of recovery of documents in written, typed, physical form of documents brought in as evidence, whereas the Section 36B deals with the computer, CVD and other computer-based digital evidence. 29. In the present proceedings, it is not a case wherein only physical documents in terms of Section 36A, or computer-based records in terms of Section 36B have been seized by the Revenue. It is a combination of both. Individually, both the physical as well as digital evidence brought in will have to fulfil the conditions of the Section 36A and Section 36B respectively. In respect of digital evidence, I have already h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the circumstances specified in Section 9D(1), the truth of the facts contained in any statement, recorded before a Gazetted Central Excise Officer, has to be proved by evidence other than the statement itself. The evidentiary value of the statement, insofar as proving the truth of the contents thereof is concerned, is, therefore, completely lost, unless and until the case falls within the parameters of Section 9D(1). 9. The consequence would be that, in the absence of the circumstances specified in Section 9D(1), if the adjudicating authority relies on the statement, recorded during investigation in Central Excise, as evidence of the truth of the facts contained in the said statement, it has to be held that the adjudicating authority has relied on irrelevant material. Such reliance would, therefore, be vitiated in law and on facts. 34. In the present case, in view of their retraction and the non-following of Section 9D procedure, the Recorded Statements relied upon by the Revenue, get vitiated and they lose their evidentiary value. 35. The Dept. has independently proceeded by way of a Show Cause Notices in respect of excess goods found, proposing to confiscate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egard, the Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal in various decisions consistently held that clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods is to be proved by tangible, direct and affirmative and incontrovertible evidences. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE v. R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on the identical issue upheld the Tribunal's order and dismissed the Revenue appeal. The said High Court's decision stands affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in Commissioner v. R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (269) E.L.T. A108 (S.C.). The Tribunal in the recent decision in the case of Mahesh Silk Mills v. CC, Mumbai - 2014 (304) E.L.T. 703 (Tri.-Ahmd.), has relied the Tribunal's decision in the case of Nova Petrochemicals v. CCE, Ahmedabad [Final Order Nos. A/11207-11219/2013, dated 26-9-2013] [2014 (311) E.L.T. 529 (Tribunal)], wherein the Tribunal laid down the fundamental criteria to be established by revenue which is reproduced as under :- "8. Similarly, in the matter of Nova Petrochemicals v. CCE, Ahmedabad-II, this Tribunal in its Final Order Nos. A/11207-11219/2013, dated 26-9-2013 this bench has held as under in Para 40 : "After havin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t case none of the above evidences or any one evidence has been established by Revenue to prove the clandestine manufacture and removal. 40. As per the detailed discussions in the above paragraphs, I hold that the evidence brought in by way of Section 36A also drastically falls short for the reasons discussed. This added to the fact that there is absence of cogent, corroborative evidence, makes me hold that the demand cannot be sustained. Hence, I allow the Appeals. 41. To summarize : (a) The factual details show that the entire case is more or less fully built on the basis of digital records / printouts. Hence, non-fulfilment of the conditions specified under Section 36B of CEA 1944, proves fatal to the Revenue's case. Hence, the appeals are required to be allowed as has been held by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) (b) The factual details discussed above show that even respect of evidence under Section 36A and towards bringing in the corroborative evidence, the Revenue has faltered. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the view taken by Hon'ble Member (Tech) and hold that even on this ground the Appeals succeed. 42. The matter stands remitted to the Div....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the same. The officers took us to a room No. 229 situated at the IInd floor of the above office premises introduced to Shri Vipul Saxena and Shirt Santosh Kumar both the engineers / employees of M/s Omni Comp. F-128/3, Ist Floor. Mohammadpur. Behind Bikhaji Cama Palace. New Delhi who have to conduct the data retrieval wori., Shn Anil Kumar Stu Shr: Brahm Pal R/o 410/1. Indra Colony, Muzaffarnagar. Authorized Signature of the party Sign. of the officers Signature of Witnesses 02/11/18 Signature of Engineers 2018 2/11/18 Rokit Kumar Panch-1 2/1/18 Stickconcis Panch - 2 9/11/018 Page -2 contd 2/1/18 -2. Person on behalf of Shri Akash kumar, Director of M/s Sri Jai Balaji Steel Rolling Mills (P) Limited. 4" K.M. Stone Meerut Road. Muzaffar Nagar, duly authorized by Shri Gaurav Swaroop. Director of M/s Sri Jai Balaji Steel Rolling Mills (P) Limited. 41 K.M. Stone Meerut Road. Muzaffarnagar. The officers shown all three laptops duly sealed separately, eight pen drives all scaled in a paper envelope and one All-in-One (sealed separately) to us and Shri Anil Kumar and requested to verify the seals which was verified by Shri Anil Kumar and found intact. Thereafter all ....