Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (1.20 seconds)
M/S. Prinik Steel (P) Ltd, vs Coms,C.Ex - Bbsr-I on 23 November, 2023 cites

M/S Shri Balaji Oils Industries vs Cgst And Central Excise on 11 January, 2022

Provisions of Section 36B are mandatory in nature. Computer printout/electronic record cannot be proved by oral evidences. 12.3. The Appellant has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Vs. CGST reported in 2023-VIL- 771-CESTAT-KOL-CE to drive home the point that the data recovered from computer print outs/pen drive is not a reliable evidence to raise demand of duty, when the person who entered the data is not identified. The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document

International Computer Ribbon Corpn. vs C.C.E. on 10 November, 1994

Ld. Sr. Counsel has argued that the above conditions were not fulfilled in respect of the computer printout taken from the personal computer of Shri Sampath Kumar. It appears from the statement of Shri Sampath Kumar and the averments in the memorandum of appeal that it is an admitted fact that Shri Sampath Kumar was the person having lawful control over the use of the computer. The computer was not shown to have been used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on by the company. It was also not shown that information of the kind contained in the computer printout was regularly supplied by the Company to the personal computer of Shri Sampath Kumar in the ordinary course of activities. Again, it was not shown that, during the relevant period, the computer was operating in the above manner properly. The above provision also casts a burden on that party, who wants to rely on the computer printout, to show that the information contained in the printout had been supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of business of the company. We find that none of these conditions was satisfied by the Revenue in this case. We have considered the Tribunal's decision in International Computer Ribbon Corporation v. CCE, Chennai (supra). In that case, as in the instant case, computer printouts were relied on by the adjudicating authority for recording a finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. It was found by the Tribunal that the printouts were neither authenticated nor recovered under Mahazar. It was also found that the assessee in that case had disowned the printouts and was not even confronted with what was contained therein. The Tribunal rejected the printouts and the Revenue's finding of clandestine 19 Excise Appeal Nos. 533-536 of 2010 manufacture and clearance. We find a strong parallel between the instant case and the cited case. Nothing contained in the printouts generated by Sampath Kumar's PC can be admitted into evidence for non-fulfilment of the statutory conditions. It is also noteworthy that the computer printouts pertained to the period February, 1996 to September, 1998 only but the information contained therein was used for a finding of clandestine removal of waste and scrap for earlier period also, which, in any case, was not permissible in law. In the result, we hold that the entire demand of duty on waste and scrap is liable to be set aside."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next