9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 67 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - Error apparent on record - Evidence - Computer Printouts - Floppies - held that - it is pointed out that in para 14 of the Final Order it was recorded in the fifth sentence that The seized floppies were not sealed . In para 12 of the Final Order it was recorded as The Ld. Special Consultant made the following submissions. Floppies were not sealed . The application proceeds to narrate various facts which would indicate that the floppies had been sealed when recovered by the officers on 24-6-04. Another error that has been sought to be rectified is the following observation in para-19 of the final order In reply to the Show Cause Notice it was pointed out that only 6 and not 12 floppies were seized from SASAI. Department relied on 12 floppies. This submission cannot be verified or vouched for want of details in the seizure mahazar. assessee - rectification application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of computer printouts as evidence in adjudication proceedings under Section 36B(2) of the Central Excise Act. 2. Authentication and reliability of computer printouts taken from seized floppies. 3. Application of Section 36B(2) of the Act to printouts taken from floppies. 4. Rectification of errors in the Final Order based on submissions by the assessees and the revenue. Analysis: 1. Admissibility of Computer Printouts: The Final Order allowed appeals filed by both the revenue and the assessees against the Commissioner's orders demanding duty on clandestinely cleared iron bars/rods and ingots/billets. The assessees challenged the order on the basis of the authenticity of computer printouts taken from floppies without following statutory formalities. The Revenue contended that the printouts were reliable evidence supporting the demand dropped for the period 2001-02. The Tribunal held that Section 36B(2) applied only to printouts taken using the assessee's CPU, not from floppies. The printouts were considered reliable if opened with specific passwords or in the presence of authorized individuals, maintaining their integrity as evidence. 2. Authentication and Reliability of Computer Printouts: The assessees contested the Final Order's findings regarding the authenticity of recovered floppies and the reliability of certain files opened with specific passwords. The Tribunal clarified that the files opened under proper supervision were deemed reliable and beyond suspicion of manipulation. The presence of electronic seals on these files indicated their integrity. The Tribunal also noted the testimony of an Accounts Officer confirming the maintenance of computerized accounts by the assessees, supporting the reliability of the accessed files. 3. Application of Section 36B(2) to Printouts from Floppies: The assessees alleged that the Bench ignored objections to accepting computer printouts as evidence under Section 36B(2) of the Act, citing the provisions of the Evidence Act for electronic records. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 36B of the Act governed the admissibility of computer printouts in adjudication proceedings, rendering parallel provisions in the Evidence Act unnecessary. The Tribunal's interpretation held that Section 36B(2) did not apply to printouts from floppies, and corroboration was not required in this context. 4. Rectification of Errors in the Final Order: Both the assessees and the revenue filed Review Applications pointing out errors in the Final Order related to the contested findings on file retrieval, authenticity of seized floppies, and the sealing of recovered floppies. The Tribunal acknowledged errors in recording submissions and findings, rectifying certain observations to align with the factual record. The Review Applications were allowed to the extent of correcting specific errors identified by the parties, leading to modifications in the Final Order. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis addressed the issues of admissibility, authentication, and application of legal provisions governing computer printouts as evidence in the adjudication proceedings, ensuring a fair and accurate resolution based on the facts presented by the parties involved.
|
