9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal No. E/55971/2014-EX (DB) - FINAL ORDER No. 51337-51338/2018 - Dated:- 2-4-2018 - Hon ble Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President and Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri R.K. Mishra Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the appellant Shri K.K. Anand Ms Surbhi Sinha, Advocate for the respondent JUDGEMENT Per: V. Padmanabhan 1. The present appeal is filed by the Department against the Order-in Original No. 32/14-15 dated 05/09/2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the DGCEI conducted a search operation on 12/11/2008 at different premises relating to the appellant, M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. (KIL) including one secret office at Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. During the search operation three laptops, three CPUs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents), Hyderabad for forensic analyses. The GEQD, Hyderabad retrieved the data contained in the profit and loss account for the period of 31 months from April, 2006 to November, 2008. The bulk of the demand raised in the show cause notice relied upon the said data retrieved from the electronic devices by GEQD but the Ld. Commissioner observed as under:- The veracity of retrieved data as contained in profit and loss accounts cannot be relied upon as the Laptop/Computer/CPU has been accessed after sealing of the same. Further, the validity of retrieved data is doubtful, as the file based upon which demand has been raised was created on 12.11.2008 at 20:45:13 hrs and entries were modified on 13.11.2008 at 1:11:45 and last accessed on 13.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a for 8 months was not separately retrieved by the Hyderabad Agency. But the fact remains that the same was available and were not examined by the Commissioner specially when it was mentioned in the show cause notice. 7. From the above it appears that the Commissioner in the impugned order has not examined the factual position properly. There is contradiction on the record and the observation made in the impugned order. They have also raised several other grounds. 8. The assessee has also filed appeal challenging demand of excise duty confirmed on them by Adjudicating Authority. 9. After hearing both sides and perusal of the voluminous records, we note that the entire case has been made on the basis of the data retrieved from the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
