2025-VIL-777-CESTAT-ALH-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-777-CESTAT-ALH-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Clandestine Removal, Electronic Evidence - The Appellant was registered with Central Excise and was engaged in the manufacture of 'Un-coated Kraft papers and Paper Board. Based on intelligence, a search was conducted at the factory of the Appellant, where 3 pen drives were found from the worker's quarters. The data retrieved from the pen drives showed that the Appellant was allegedly suppressing production and removing goods without payment of excise duty. A Show Cause Notice was issued demanding excise duty along with interest and penalty - Whether the data retrieved from the pen drives can be considered as admissible evidence - HELD - The data retrieved from the pen drives cannot be accepted as tangible evidence - The pen drives were not seized under proper seizure memo, and there was no certificate obtained as required under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anwar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer, which held that computer printouts can be admitted as evidence only if the same are produced in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act and a certificate is also required to accompany the computer printouts as prescribed under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act - The provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act and Section 36B of the Central Excise Act are pari materia, and the Department had failed to follow the safeguards mandated under Section 36B of the Act. Therefore, the charges of clandestine removal based on such unauthenticated data were set aside - the impugned order is set aside and the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed - Whether the charges of clandestine removal can be upheld based on assumptions and presumptions - HELD - the charges of clandestine removal of goods cannot be upheld merely on assumptions and presumptions, but has to be proved with positive evidence such as purchase of excess raw materials, consumption of excess electricity, employment of extra labour, seizure of cash, transportation of clandestinely removed goods, etc. - The Department had failed to gather any such documents from the factory of the Appellant, and the evidence brought on record by the Department was incomplete, inconsistent, and not a reliable piece of evidence to prove the charges of clandestine removal.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Biweekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Rules & Industry Preparedness
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?