2026-VIL-1692-CESTAT-CHE-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1692-CESTAT-CHE-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Admissibility of electronic data and computer printouts in clandestine manufacture and removal case – Section 36B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 138C of Customs Act, 1962 – Demand of duty with interest and penalty under Section 11AC was confirmed on alleged unaccounted clearances of TMT bars based largely on production, purchase and sales figures in a CD and computer printouts seized from the Appellant's premises and from suppliers - Appellant contended that the requirements of Section 36B were not fulfilled, the CD was disowned, the mahazars did not record particulars of the computer from which the data was generated, and no steps were taken for years to establish compliance - Revenue relied on Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex - Whether the electronic data and printouts, without the requisite certificate, are admissible evidence for sustaining the demand - HELD - An electronic record cannot be relied upon merely because it exists, and the statutory requirements governing its admissibility must first be satisfied. Admissibility is distinct from probative value. Computer printouts can be admitted only upon fulfilment of the statutory requirements, including the certificate, as held in Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar. The ratio of Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex applies only where the department has shown that it did everything possible to obtain the certificate from a third party over whom the officials had no control. No such position was shown - In the absence of the requisite certificate, the electronic data is not admissible and is discarded. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it determines the demand by mechanically adopting figures from the electronic records, and the matter is remanded for re-quantification on other legally available evidence, with no reliance on the discarded data - Central Excise – Evidentiary value of statements recorded during investigation and denial of cross-examination – Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Clandestine procurement, manufacture and removal of goods without payment of duty alleged against the Appellant-company, with penalty under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on its Managing Director - Adjudicating authority relied on statements of persons connected with the supplier, transporters, a trader and purchasers, and the Managing Director's own statement admitting receipt of quantities not accounted for - Appellant contended that the statements could not be relied upon without following Section 9D and that cross-examination was rejected as a delaying tactic - Whether statements recorded during investigation can be relied upon when cross-examination was not permitted, and whether the demand can be quantified on that basis - HELD - A statement recorded during investigation is a distinct piece of admissible evidence, and its value must be examined independently of the electronic records. The relevant inquiry is whether the admissions were made voluntarily. Cross-examination is not an absolute right in every case, and its denial is tested on the touchstone of prejudice, as held in Dharampal Satyapal and by the jurisdictional High Court. A blanket request to cross-examine cannot be sustained - Clandestine activity is undertaken in secrecy and is ordinarily established through circumstantial evidence and statements of connected persons. The statements remained unretracted, nothing indicated that they were involuntary, and the Appellant did not demonstrate specific prejudice for each witness. The statements are therefore admissible. However, an admissible statement does not automatically establish the entire quantum of clandestine manufacture and clearance, and quantities appearing exclusively in the excluded electronic records cannot be adopted - The matter is remanded to the original authority to re-quantify the demand, if any, on admissible statements and independent documentary and circumstantial evidence, after a reasonable opportunity of hearing, within ninety days. Interest and penalties, including the penalty on the Managing Director, are to be redetermined accordingly
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
By CA 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

Security-Code
New Code?

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.

Security-Code
New Code?

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?