9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence to demand duty? - Whether the conditions mentioned in Section 36B has been followed in this case or not, to rely upon the computer printouts as evidence? - HELD THAT:- The procedure prescribed in Section 36B must be followed to rely on the computer sheets as evidence. It is observed that the department has not followed the procedure prescribed in Section 36B. The author of the entries made in the computer has not been identified. The certificate as prescribed under Section 36B(4) has not been obtained. Hence, the computer sheets recovered from the pen drives cannot be relied upon to arrive at clandestine clearance - As the department has not followed the mandate under section 36B, the data recovered from the print outs available in the computer sheets cannot be relied upon to work out the duty liability on the allegation of clandestine removal. Accordingly, the answer to the question are in the negative. Whether the procedure as set out in Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was followed in this case or not? - If not followed, then whether the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be relied upon to demand duty? - HELD THAT:- The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.12.2018 passed by Ld. Commissioner, Jamshedpur Commissionerate. Excise Appeal No. 76044 of 2023 has been filed by the appellant M/s. Narsingh Ispat Ltd. and Excise Appeal No. 76046 of 2023 has been filed by Shri Hemant Goyal, Director of the Appellant-company. By the impugned Order, the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed Central Excise Duty demand of Rs.19,94,41,968/- (including Cesses) along with interest and equal amount of duty as penalty, on the ground that the Appellant has clandestinely removed 47658 M.T. of Pig Iron without payment of duty. The Ld. Commissioner has further imposed penalty of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on Shri Hemant Goyal, Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 1.1 Aggrieved against the confirmation of the above said demands both the appellants filed separate appeals. As the impugned order confirming the above said demand of duty and penalty is common, both the appeals are taken up together for decision by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Pig Iron falling under Chapter 72, at their factory located in Jamshedpur. The Appellant is also engaged in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , removal report etc., do not relate to the Appellant-Company and hence they are all extraneous materials which cannot be used against them as evidence. (ii) The printout taken from the pen drive relied upon in support of the charge, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and no certificate as mandated thereunder is accompanied with it. The appellant submits that the 'pen drives' are floating devices and hence cannot be related to any particular computer. Electronic evidences cannot be used as evidence unless it is accompanied by certificate as mandated under Section 36B(4) which is missing in the instant case and the burden is squarely on the Department. Accordingly, they contended that they are irrelevant materials and cannot be admitted into evidence. (iii) In support of this claim, the Appellant relied on the following decisions :- i. CCE Vs. Shivam Steel Corporation [(2023) 2 Centax 259 (Ori.)] ii. Shivam Steel Corporation Vs Commr. of C.Ex. Cus., BBSR-II [2016 (339) E.L.T. 310 (Tri-Kolkata)] iii. Super Smelters Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., C.Ex. and S.Tax, Durgapur [2020 (371) E.L.T. 751 (Tri.-Kolkata)] iv. Jai Balaji Industries L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty. Out of several buyers, 3 buyers examined who did not accept the charge. There is no evidence of flow of back of huge funds of Rs.160.94 Cr. (viii) There is no evidence of purchase of raw material. For manufacture of 47658 MT finished goods as alleged, at least 104848 M.T of raw materials (Iron Ore/Sinter/Pellete) and 23829 MT of Coke would be required. But, in the instant case there is not a single evidence of out of account purchase of single tonne of the said raw materials (Iron Ore/Sinter/Pellet, Coke) and Fluxes (Dolomite, Lime Stone, Quartz) was found available. There is no evidence of extra use of labour and extra payment of wages out of account; There is no evidence of any extra use of electricity etc. There is no acceptance of sellers of raw materials. No enquiries were conducted with the raw material suppliers. There is no evidence of transportation of raw material. The appellants also placed reliance on the decision in the case of M/s. Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India [2014 (309) E.L.T. 411 (All.)] in support of their claim that the Revenue is required to prove their charge of clandestine removal by means of tangible and sufficient evidence. (ix) In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned persons. In their submissions, the Appellant questioned the evidentiary value of the computer print-outs. They stated that the computerized documents relied upon by the department are not admissible evidences, since the mandate provided under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not followed. The statements cannot be relied upon since the provisions of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not followed. They also stated that clandestine removal cannot be confirmed on the basis of statements alone. There must be positive evidences like admission of clandestine removal, purchase and consumption of unaccounted raw materials, discrepancy between recorded stock and physical stock, seizure of any goods en route, consumption of excess electricity, actual clandestine removal of finished goods without payment of duty, mode of removal, evidence of transporters and buyers of the clandestinely removed goods and flow back of funds pertaining to clandestine removals. They stated that the demands confirmed in the impugned order without any of the above mentioned evidences are not sustainable. 7. Thus, we observe that the issues to be decided in this appeal are as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments and as evidence. (1) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer printout shall be the following, namely :- (a) the computer printout containing the statement was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities, information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of the contents; and (d) the information contained in the statement reproduced or is derived from information supplied to the computer i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on the printouts taken from the laptop, computer obtained during the search. And the appeals were allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The ratio of this case is squarely applicable in toto to this case on hand also thus the demand is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 7.7. We observe that the decision is squarely applicable in this case. As the department has not followed the mandate under section 36B, the data recovered from the print outs available in the computer sheets cannot be relied upon to work out the duty liability on the allegation of clandestine removal. Accordingly, the answer to the question numbers (i) and (ii) raised at paragraph 7 (supra) are in the negative. 8. (iii) Whether the procedure as set out in Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was followed in this case or not? If not followed, then whether the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be relied upon to demand duty? 8.1. The Appellant submits that the statement recorded by a Gazetted officer is relevant in an adjudication proceeding only if the procedure prescribed under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act is followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st be examined as a witness in the case before the adjudicating authority, and (ii) the adjudicating authority has, thereafter, to form the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. 14. There is no justification for jettisoning this procedure, statutorily prescribed by plenary parliamentary legislation for admitting, into evidence, a statement recorded before the Gazetted Central Excise officer, which does not suffer from the handicaps contemplated by clause (a) of Section 9D(1) of the Act. The use of the word shall in Section 9D(1), makes it clear that, the provisions contemplated in the sub-section are mandatory. Indeed, as they pertain to conferment of admissibility to oral evidence they would, even otherwise, have to be recorded as mandatory. 8.4. We observe that the adjudicating authority has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 9D, accordingly, we hold that the statements cannot be relied upon to confirm the demands. Thus, the answer to question number (iii) raised at paragraph 7 (supra) is in the negative. 9. (iv) Whether the demands confirmed in the impugned order on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and and levied the penalties. The statement of so called buyers, namely M/s. Singhal Cement Agency, M/s. Praveen Cement Agency; and M/s. Taj Traders are based on memory alone and their statements were not supported by any documentary evidence/proof. The mischievous role of Shri Anil Kumar erstwhile Director with the assistance of Accountant Sri Vasts cannot be ruled out. 15. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that when there is no extra consumption of electricity, purchase of raw materials and transportation payment, then manufacturing of extra goods is not possible. No purchase of raw material out side the books have been proved. 16. In the light of the above discussions and considering the totality of the case, we are satisfied that no case is made out for extra so called clandestine sale of the Portland Cement to the said parties. We are satisfied that the first appellate authority has rightly deleted the addition and cancel the penalties. Hence we hereby set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and restore the order passed by the first appellate authority, along with the reasons mentioned herein. 17. In the result, all the appeals filed by the appellants are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs were not related to the appellant-company. It has been submitted that he has retracted his statement dated 26.09.2015 and the statement given by him was not given voluntarily but taken under coercion. Accordingly, it is submitted that the depositions made during investigation in his statement cannot be relied upon; thus, the penalty levied on him is not sustainable. 10.2 From the above discussion, we find that the allegation of clandestine removal against the appellant-company is not sustainable. Accordingly, the role of Director of the appellant-company in the alleged clandestine clearance is not established. We also observe that no benefit of the alleged illegal activities have accrued to the Director. Therefore, we hold that the penalty imposed on the Director of the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. Thus, the answer to question no. (v) at paragraph 7 (supra) is in the negative. 11. In view of the above discussion, we answer the questions raised at paragraph 7 of this Order as under: - (i) The computer print-outs taken from the pen drives recovered during the search cannot be relied upon as evidence to dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
