Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.23 seconds)
Shilphy Steels Pvt Ltd vs Raipur on 28 February, 2019 cites

M/S. Shree Nakoda Ispat Ltd vs C.C.E. Raipur on 1 July, 2016

In the case of Sh. Nakoda Ispat Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur, 2017 (348) ELT 313 (Tribunal), the retraction of the statement through the defense reply has been held to be admissible. In the light of the said judgment, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Sh. Nitin Agarwal. 4.27. That the cross-examination of Sh. Rao clearly establishes that  the statement dated 17.08.2011, of Sh. Rao is neither voluntary nor true.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Premium Packaging P. Ltd., Shri Vipul ... vs Cce on 16 December, 2004

4,30,000/- in the office premises of the appellant. The officers were fully satisfied that the said cash was fully accounted for and they did not seize this cash. Thus no unaccounted cash was found during the search of the office premises or the factory premises or the two 5 E/51310, 51323/2016-DB residential premises of its director, which establishes that the appellant has not manufactured & cleared any goods clandestinely. 4.2. That entire case of the Department is based on the data retrieved from one pen drive only which was recovered during the search from the residence of the director. None of the hard disc of desktop computers or laptops or other pen drives contain any incriminating data. Reconstructed data or data retrieved from computer /laptop is not admissible as evidence under the provisions of Section 36B of the CEA, 1944, as it was not produced by the computer during the period over which it was used regularly to store or process information. The data has been retrieved from the pen drive subsequently after almost after 1 year 9 months from the date of search and not during the course of use of the hard disc, computer or pen drives. A demand of duty on the basis of reconstructed or retrieved data is not sustainable as such data does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 36B(2) as held in the case of Premium Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2005 (184) ELT 165 (CESTAT). Hence the demand of duty on the basis of the data retrieved from the pen drive is not sustainable. 4.3. That the person who has maintained the accounts in Tally has not been identified and questioned by the investigating officers. In his statements dated 27.11.2013, Sh. Nitin Agarwal has repeatedly stated that the pen drive was not prepared by him or at his instance, but was prepared by some staff member unauthorisedly. This contention of Sh. Nitin Agarwal has not been rebutted in the show cause notice or the impugned order. Since the pen drive has 6 E/51310, 51323/2016-DB been prepared unauthorisedly, the data contained therein cannot be said to be authentic and no reliance can be placed on it, to allege clandestine removal of goods.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next