The Commissioner Of Service Tax vs M/S. Vasoo Builders Pvt on 12 February, 2020
b) In the case of Ambica Organics vs.
COMMR of C.EX & CUS. Surat-1, reported in
2016 (334) ELT 97 (Tri - Ahmd.), wherein, it is
held that "as regards computer printout and its
admissibility as evidence, investigating officer
22 CC.No.02/17
failed to comply with mandatory provisions and
conditions of section 36B of Central Excise
Act, 1944 - No certificate as required under
impugned provisions, taken from person
occupying responsible official position -
coupled with assessee immediately disowning
contents of these printouts, no evidentiary
value attributable to these printouts also - No
other corroborative evidence having been
brought out, clandestine manufacture or
removal not established - Assessee's
clearances being with SSI limit, demand,
confiscation and penalty not sustainable -
Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944,
(Paras.7, 8, 9, 10, 11)."