2017 (1) TMI 922 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - MS Ingots - principles of natural justice - Held that - I find that section 36(b)(2) provides the conditions in respect of computer printouts. But, the said procedure has not been followed by the Revenue while relying on the said computer printout. Therefore, the said print outs cannot be the piece of evidence to demand duty from the appellant - Therefore, as the computer print outs are not admissible evidence, in that circumstances it cannot be alleged that the quantity of MS ingots shown in the computer print outs have been used for manufacturing of finished goods and cleared clandestinely. Revenue has failed to prove the clandestine receipt of MS Ingots from Ramadevi and used thereof in manufactured clandestinely and to clear finished goods clandestinely without payment of duty with positive evidence. Therefore, charge of clandestine removal of goods is not sustainable against the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Clandestine manufacture and clearance of finished goods.
2. Admissibility of computerized sheets as evidence.
3. Compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944.
4. Adequacy of evidence to support the charge of clandestine removal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Clandestine Manufacture and Clearance of Finished Goods:

The appellant was accused of clandestine manufacture and clearance of CTD bars without payment of duty based on the computer-generated statement seized from their premises and the statements of various individuals. The Preventive department seized a computerized statement showing the receipt of 358.17 MT of MS Ingots from M/s. Ramdevi Steels Pvt. Ltd. Further, statements from Shri Prakash Srivastva and Shri Om Prakash Mittal suggested the appellant's involvement in clandestine activities. However, the appellant disputed these claims, arguing that the evidence was based on assumptions and lacked corroborative support.

2. Admissibility of Computerized Sheets as Evidence:

The appellant challenged the genuineness and admissibility of the computerized sheets under Section 36B of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944. The appellant's counsel argued that the computerized sheets could not be relied upon as evidence since the prescribed procedure under Section 36B was not followed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the computerized printouts were not legible and lacked the necessary certification and procedural compliance required under Section 36B.

3. Compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944:

Section 36B outlines the conditions under which computer printouts can be admissible as evidence. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue did not adhere to these conditions, specifically failing to provide a certificate identifying the document, describing its production, and ensuring the computer's proper operation. Without following these prescribed procedures, the computerized printouts could not be considered admissible evidence.

4. Adequacy of Evidence to Support the Charge of Clandestine Removal:

The Tribunal emphasized the need for tangible, direct, and affirmative evidence to prove clandestine manufacture and removal of goods. The parameters set forth in the case of R A Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Meerut-I were referenced, which include receipt of raw material, utilization for manufacturing, and evidence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not make sufficient efforts to gather such evidence. There was no examination of invoices, transporters, or any corroborative documentation to substantiate the clandestine removal claim. The Tribunal also noted the absence of statements from transporters or drivers, further weakening the Revenue's case.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to prove the clandestine receipt of MS Ingots and the subsequent manufacture and clearance of finished goods without payment of duty. The computerized printouts were deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 36B, and the evidence provided was insufficient and lacked corroboration. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

← Previous Next →