Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

b) On 30.01.2006, there was an investigation by the Officers of the 3 rd respondent along with the Officers of the 1st respondent during the course of which certain materials were seized which inter-alia included incriminating records, CPU of two computers, note-books and pocket diaries which indicated that there was clandestine removal of MS Ingots and CTD Bars/rods.

c) The seized computers with the CPUs were kept in sealed boxes and opened in the presence of appellant/representatives. The data contained in the computer were copied in a hard disc and handed over to the Appellant. The hard disc was sent for imaging to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, (hereinafter referred to as ‘’GEQD’’).

d) A show cause notice was issued for the period April 2004 to February 2008 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis proposing a duty demand to the tune of Rs.16.73 Crores apart from proposing penalty on the appellant and its Directors.

e) The appellant moved the 1st respondent for settlement of dispute/ case in terms of Section 32 L/ E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. While the matter was pending consideration with the 1st respondent Commission, the appellant filed an application under Section 32 F(4) of the Central Excise Act, inasmuch as according to the appellant the data contained in the hard disc was unreliable and thereby questioning the authenticity of GEQD printouts containing the data taken behind its back.

7. The 1st Respondent Commission on receipt of the above Report dated 24.05.2012 vide order dated 29.4.2013 directed the Commissioner(Investigation) of the 1st Respondent Commission to conduct further investigation on the following aspects:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) What is the actual data present in the seized hard disc?
(ii) Whether the data present at the time of seizure underwent any alteration or whatsoever at the subsequent stages in the investigation involving the GEQD report?
(iii) At the time of seizure the data in CPC was copied in 2 CDs as well. Examine the data in the CDs for its authenticity as primary evidence.
(iv) Examine the applicant's contention that the fresh hard disc on which they were allowed to take copies of the data from seized hard disc by the investigating agencies was used by them for accounting purposes and the data got corrupted.

Examine also whether such use for accounting violated conditions if any outlined with the permission to take the copies of the hard disc data.