TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.2014 has not been relied upon in the show cause notice, and neither the appellant nor his authorised representative was present on 03.07.2014, when the data from the Hard Disk No. 2 was retrieved on DVD. It is clear that the said Hard Disk could have been tempered, therefore, cannot be relied upon as evidence inasmuch the said data has been retrieved without ensuring the presence of the appellants - further, no certificate has been produced by the department as envisaged under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which provides the conditions to be fulfilled in order to admit the said documents in evidence. The computer printouts relied upon by the revenue are not admissible in evidence - As far as statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, which have been relied upon by the revenue, it is found that the learned Commissioner had denied the cross-examination of witnesses, therefore, in view of the decision of Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE, Kolkata, [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] and CCE Vs Kurele Pan Products Pvt. Ltd., [2014 (4) TMI 463 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], the said statements cannot be relied upon as evidence. Thus, the statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty. Shri D.P. Singh, General Manger of the appellant declared the stock on 06.05.2015. Thereafter, the department conducted stock verification on 06.05.2015, and found shortage of finished goods and raw materials (coal). The data contained in the two electronic memory devices (hard disks) recovered and seized on 05.05.2014 was retrieved under Panchnama dated 03/04.07.2014, at Computer Cell of Central Excise Hqrs, Raipur. The department has retrieved one hard disk on 03.07.2014 and sealed it (the said Panchnama has not been relied upon in SCN). That, vide Panchnama dated 04.07.2014, the officers took printout of the retrieved data, however, the other hard disk was not retrieved on 04.07.2014. The print out data comprised of the Monthly Production Reports containing data sheets named Actual Sheet and Monthly Report Sheets files, purportedly containing entries related to actual production and booked production quantity of sponge iron for the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 (upto Nov, 2013). The department compared the said monthly production report with the RG-1 register and found matching with the data mentioned under heading Book and it was also found that data mentioned u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944) and various statements (which is otherwise not admissible as per Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944), without adducing any other corroborative evidence. It is well settled law, that as held by the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Continental Cement Company Vs Union of India, 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) , the department is required to adduce clinching evidence of the purchase of raw material, use of electricity, sale of final products, payment, realization of sale proceeds, mode and flow back of funds. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced here for ready reference:- 12. Further, unless there is clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products, clandestine removals, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. On careful examination, it is found that with regard to alleged removals, the department has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of Section 36B of Central Excise Act, 1944.It is further submitted that, as per ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, reported at Manu/S.C./0834/2014 = 2017 (352) E.L.T. 416 (S.C.), as held in Para-13 of the said ruling, that on interpreting the provisions of Section 65B of Evidence Act, 1872 (which is para materia with Section 36B of Central Excise Act, 1944). The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form and that the Section starts with a non obstante clause, which says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic form, shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-sec (2) are satisfied and that the admissibility of such document retrieved from electronic record needs to satisfy four conditions. It is further submitted that on interpretation of Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act the Hon ble Supreme Court has held in Para-15 of said ruling that a certificate as specified must accompany the electronic record, like computer printout, Compact Disk, pen drive etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the following judgments that the department has to comply with the provisions of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, if the department wants to rely upon the said evidence: (i) Kuwer Industries Vs CCE, Noida, 2018 (11) TMI 1033 CESTAT Allahabad (ii) Premier Instruments Controls Ltd. Vs CCE, Coimbatore, 2005 (183) ELT 65 (Tri-Chennai) (iii) Anwar P.V. Vs P.K. Basheer, 2017 (352) ELT 416 (SC) (iv) Popular Paints and Chemicals Vs CCE, Raipur, 2018 (8) TMI 473 CESTAT New Delhi 3.10. It is urged that no employee has been charged in the show cause notice with respect to alleged activities of suppression of production and removal thereof. The appellant would also rely upon the grounds taken in the appeal. 3.11 It is urged that the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 during investigation cannot be straight away relied upon as evidence as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hi-Tech Abrasives Vs CCE ST, Raipur, 2018 (362) ELT 961 (Chhattisgarh) . Similar view has been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of G-tech Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine removal of goods nor any goods have been confiscated or held liable to confiscation. 3.18 It is respectfully submitted that the extended period cannot be invoked in the present case inasmuch show cause notice has been issued beyond one year of normal limitation period. It is further submitted that no interest and penalty can be imposed against the appellant. In view of the submissions made above, impugned order is liable to be set aside, and appeals be allowed with consequential relief. 4. The learned AR appearing on behalf of the department reiterated the findings in the impugned order and further relied upon the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Guruharkishan Industries Vs CCE, Delhi-II, Final Order No. 51970-51979/2018 dated 23.05.2018 and Shri Ulaganayagi Ammal Steels Vs CCE, Trichy, reported as, 2008 (231) ELT 434 (Tri-Chennai), to support his plea that computer prints out are admissible as evidence and the provisions of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been complied with. He therefore further requested to dismiss the appeals of the appellant. 5. Having considered the rival submissions at length and pursued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n admissible evidence unless the conditions as laid in the provisions of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act are fully complied with. A perusal of section 36B would indicate that the Act has prescribed very stringent conditions for computer printouts to be a piece of admissible evidence. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants has invited our attention particular to provisions of Section 36B(2) and (4) of the Central Excise Act. For the better appreciation of facts, it is relevant to cite Section 36B of Central Excise Act is as below: 36B. Admissibility of microfilms, facsimile copies of documents and computer print outs as documents and as evidence (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, (a) a microfilm of a document or the reproduction of the image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); or (b) a facsimile copy of a document; 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 ), if the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) and the other provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings under this Act and the rules made thereunder where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate certify any of the following things, that is to say,- (a) identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information 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 only if the conditions mentioned under sub- Section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act: (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 compute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India. 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 all the safeguards as prescribed in Section 65B (2) (4), to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tempering, alteration, transposition, excision etc without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. We may add here that the provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and Section 36B of Central Excise Act are parimateria. 15.3 It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue are not admissible in evidence in view of the discussions above. As far as statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, which have been relied upon by the revenue, we find that the learned Commissioner had denied the cross-examination of witnesses, therefore, in view of the decision of Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE, Kolkata, 2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC) and CCE Vs Kurele Pan Products Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (307) ELT 42 (All.), the said statements cannot be relied upon as evidence. We further find that the Hon ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Hi-Tech Abrasives Ltd. Vs. CCE C, Raipur, 2018 (362) ELT 961 (Chhattisgarh), has held that statements recorded under Section 14 of the Act cannot be relied upon as evidence without following the rigor of Section 9D of the Act. It has been further held that the provisions of Section 9D is mandatory in nature. The Hon ble High Court held as under:- 9.5 Undoubtedly, the proceedings are quasi criminal in nature because it results in imposition of not only of duty but also of penalty and in many cases, it may also lead to prosecution. The provisions contained in Section 9D, therefore, has to be constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . iii. Final Order No. 62244-62245 of 2018 dated 23.04.18 in the case of Bhupinder Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV, in Appeal No. E/2328/09 and E/2617/09 passed by Larger Bench of this Hon ble Tribunal. iv. CCE, Delhi-I Vs. Kuber Tobacco India Ltd, 2016 (338) ELT 113 (Tri-Del.) 10. In view of the settled law and facts of the present case, the statements relied upon by the revenue are not admissible and cannot be relied upon as evidence and has to be eschewed from evidence. 11. We further find that there is no corroborative evidence adduced by the department in order to allege huge production and removal of goods. We find that as held by Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Continental Cement Company Vs Union of India, 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.), the department is required to adduce clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw material, use of electricity, sale of final products, payment, realization of sale proceeds, mode and flow back of funds. 12. We find that in the present case, there is no reliable evidence adduced by the department in order to prove clandestine production and removal of goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
