9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 535/ 2008 dated 30-4-08 [2008 (231) E.L.T. 434 (Tribunal)]. The above Final Order allowed the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessees against Order No. 6/2007 dated 4-5-07 and No. 7/2007 dated 10-5-07 of the CCE, Trichy by way of remand. These orders had demanded duty on iron bars/rods and ingots/billets found to have been cleared respectively by SASAI and SUAS clandestinely during 2002-03 and 2003-04. Commissioner had dropped the proposal to demand duty on such clearances made during 2001-02, on the ground that the only evidence available were computer print outs. As they did not satisfy the conditions under Section 36B(2) of Central Excise Act (the Act) they could not be used as evidence as such, in the absence of corroboration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presence of Ms. Ponnalagu after the date of seizure, namely 24-6-04 were reliable. The second mentioned files carried a computer generated endorsement that they had been modified (opened) last on a date earlier to 24-6-04. We treated the password protected files and files last modified when they were in assessee's custody above suspicion of having been manipulated. Each of them had in effect carried an inviolate digital seal as it were. 5.We have heard the parties. 6. Ld. Consultant for the revenue submitted that the assessee argued the ROM elaborately and strenuously. The assessees wanted the evidence to be reappreciated and the order changed lock, stock and barrel. This amounted to review. This was not permissible in an ROM appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle had nothing to do with the inherent powers of the Tribunal. One of the important reasons for giving the power of rectification to the Tribunal was to see that no prejudice was caused to either of the parties appearing before it by its decision based on a mistake apparent from the record. When prejudice resulted from an order attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it was the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. E/ROM /50, 51/2008 8.We have considered the apparent errors pointed out by SASAI and SUAS. (a) It is pointed out that the following finding in para 17 of our Final Order is an error. "In their submissions dated 3-1-08, the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I and a person who had maintained the computer, for the first time after seizing the floppy with the key (password) he gave were reliable. Files on the floppies seized from the residence of M/s. Ponnalagu when opened were found to carry the computer generated endorsement that they had been modified last on a date before 24-6-04 (when the floppies were seized). These files were also reliable. These files were beyond suspicion of the investigating authority having manipulated them. They had in effect an electronic seal which showed that they had not been tampered with. We find that Shri N. Palani, Accounts Officer had deposed on 23-8-04 that Shri S.P.M. Anandan and he had maintained computerized accounts and issued invoices. This answers the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t apply to the print outs as they had been taken from floppies and not CPU of the parties. Section 36B(2) applied only to printouts taken from CPU of the assessee. As 36B(2) did not apply no corroboration was required. Commissioner had not taken such a stand. The Tribunal was therefore barred from taking such a view. Therefore the decision of the Bench taking such a view was an error apparent from the record. We do not think that we are barred from applying a particular reading of a material provision which appeals to us as correct if a different view had been held by the authority in the order under challenge. Therefore we do not find any error in our holding that Section 36B of the Act did not apply in the instant case. We also do not th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the investigating agency. Assessees have no case that 3.5" floppies had not been seized from them. We have found that the files found reliable had not been tampered by the officers. The source of the files are the floppies maintained by the assessees. What is not in doubt is that the seized files contained genuine data. The assessee alone was in possession of the information as to when the data got transferred from zip drive to floppy. We do not find any injustice caused to SASAI and SUAS by our finding which is not wrong. The following finding in our Final Order is not denied by the assessees : "SASAI admitted in their final submissions dated 3-1-08 that computer printsouts with corroboration are acceptable evidence". This showed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
