2025-VIL-1006-CESTAT-DEL-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-1006-CESTAT-DEL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Clandestine removal, Compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Reliance on Director's statement, Burden of proof - Whether the data retrieved from the computer and pen-drive was admissible as evidence without compliance with the certification requirements under Section 36B of the CEA, 1944 – HELD - The Department failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 36B, which requires the data retrieved from a computer to be certified by the person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the device. The mere panchnama prepared in the presence of witnesses and the Director cannot be treated as a valid certificate under Section 36B. The printout of the data retrieved from the USB drive, without any certification, has no evidentiary value - Department failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements and did not establish the allegations through cogent and corroborative evidence – The Revenue appeal is dismissed - Whether the statement of the director, Rakshit Bhansali, recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act can be relied upon without following the procedure under section 9D of the Act – HELD - The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that the statement of the Director can be considered as relevant evidence only if the procedure contemplated under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act is followed, i.e., the director is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority, and the authority is of the opinion that the statement should be admitted in the interest of justice. Failure to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 9D renders the Director's statement inadmissible - Whether the department discharged its burden of proof to substantiate the allegations of clandestine removal of goods – HELD - The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly observed that the department failed to discharge its burden of proof by not obtaining crucial evidence from the buyers to whom the goods were allegedly sold. The Department did not summon any of the buyers to record their statements, which was essential to determine the type of products sold by the Respondent.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Biweekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST changes in July '25
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?