9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 825 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal of goods - Clearance of goods without issuance of bills - Excess stock found lying in the factory - Confiscation of seized goods - Release of goods on issuance of bank guarantee - Held that - 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 print out. 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 confiscation of the goods cannot be sustained. So the imposition of penalties are not warranted. - demand of duty along with interest and penalties on the appellants cannot be sustained. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Admissibility and evidentiary value of computer printouts from USB drive without compliance with Section 36B Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governs the admissibility of computer printouts and electronic records as evidence. It requires satisfaction of certain conditions, including that the computer producing the printout was regularly used for the relevant activities, the information was regularly supplied in the ordinary course of business, the computer was operating properly, and the printout is accompanied by a certificate from a responsible official verifying these facts. The Tribunal relied on precedents such as the decision in M/s Premier Instruments & Controls Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, which held that computer printouts not satisfying the statutory conditions under Section 36B are inadmissible and cannot form the basis of a demand. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the printout was taken from a USB drive connected to a computer at the appellant's premises during a raid. However, the data was not stored on the computer itself but on the USB drive. No certificate under Section 36B(4) was obtained, and the conditions under Section 36B(2) were not fulfilled. The computer expert accompanying the officers did not provide the required certification. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory safeguards are mandatory for electronic evidence to be admissible. Key evidence and findings: The printout contained detailed sales data, including dates, buyers, and values. The appellants disowned the printout, alleging data manipulation by a computer operator with a personal vendetta. The absence of compliance with Section 36B conditions and lack of certification undermined the evidentiary value of the printout. Application of law to facts: Given the failure to comply with Section 36B, the Tribunal held that the printout cannot be accepted as evidence to establish clandestine removal of goods. The reliance on such electronic evidence without adherence to statutory requirements is impermissible. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the printout found on the USB drive at the appellant's premises is strong evidence and cannot be disowned. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing statutory compliance over mere possession of electronic data. Conclusions: The demand of duty based solely on the computer printout without compliance with Section 36B is unsustainable. Issue 2: Evidentiary value of statements recorded from 30 persons (buyers and transporters) Relevant legal framework and precedents: Statements recorded during investigation must be voluntary and credible to have evidentiary value. The right to cross-examination is essential to test the veracity of such statements. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating authority denied cross-examination of all 30 persons, while the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed cross-examination of only 4 randomly selected persons. Three of these four stated that their statements were pre-drafted and signed under a promise that no action would be taken against them, indicating lack of voluntariness. Key evidence and findings: The statements admitted purchase of goods without bills, which would expose the buyers to penalty, yet no show cause notices were issued to them. This fact supported the appellants' contention that the statements were not voluntary and were pre-drafted to incriminate the appellant. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the evidentiary value of these statements is considerably weakened due to their involuntary nature and lack of proper cross-examination. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue sought to rely on these statements to corroborate the computer printout. The Tribunal found such reliance misplaced given the questionable voluntariness and procedural irregularities. Conclusions: The statements of the 30 persons cannot be given strong evidentiary weight to support the demand. Issue 3: Validity of confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties Relevant legal framework and precedents: Confiscation and penalty provisions under Central Excise law require clear evidence of duty evasion and clandestine removal. The SSI exemption limit exempts clearance value up to Rs. 1 Crore from duty. Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the demand of duty itself was not sustainable due to lack of admissible evidence, the confiscation of goods and penalty imposition could not be sustained. The Tribunal noted absence of evidence such as manufacture records, raw material purchases, or transport documents indicating clandestine removal. Key evidence and findings: The appellants' clearance value was within the SSI exemption limit. The seized goods were released on bond and appropriated towards fine in lieu of confiscation. The Tribunal found no material to justify confiscation or penalties. Application of law to facts: Without a valid demand, ancillary actions such as confiscation and penalties are invalid. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue justified penalties and confiscation on the basis of electronic evidence and statements. The Tribunal rejected this justification. Conclusions: Confiscation and penalties are not sustainable in the absence of valid duty demand. Issue 4: Whether the appellants' claim of clearance within SSI exemption limit is valid Relevant legal framework and precedents: SSI exemption permits clearance of goods without payment of duty up to Rs. 1 Crore in a financial year. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellants claimed that their clearance value was below Rs. 1 Crore, entitling them to exemption. The Revenue's demand was based on disputed electronic records and statements which were found unreliable. Key evidence and findings: No credible evidence was found to rebut the appellants' claim of clearance within exemption limit. Application of law to facts: In absence of admissible evidence to the contrary, the appellants' claim stands. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on inadmissible evidence was rejected. Conclusions: The appellants' clearance within the SSI exemption limit is accepted. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held: "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 print out. 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 confiscation of the goods cannot be sustained. So, the imposition of penalties are not warranted." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
