Case Details: Trikoot Iron & Steel Casting Ltd. vs. Additional Director General (Adjn.) Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Adjudication Cell), New Delhi (2025) 36 Centax 260 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Hemambika R. Priya, Member (T)
- Ms Nisha Bineesh, Shri Anurag Mishra, Advocates & Ms Sanya Bhatia, C.A., for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Rakesh Agarwal & Ratnesh Kumar Mishra, Authorised Representatives, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
During a search at the company’s premises, hard disks and pen drives were recovered from various locations, including a room corner and a kitchen cupboard. The panchnama recorded that the company director allegedly removed a hard disk and attempted to discard it, though the officers did not witness this. Subsequently, the company accountant connected the hard disk to a CPU and generated printouts of sales, purchases, and cash data, covering both accounted and unaccounted transactions; these printouts were signed by the director and accountant and affixed with the company stamp. Printing was interrupted due to a printer malfunction, and the seized hard disks and pen drives were later used to take additional printouts. Notably, the Department neither attempted to admit the hard disks and pen drives as evidence nor produced a certificate under Section 36B(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, instead contending that the panchnama itself should serve as the certificate. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that printouts from a seized personal computer cannot be admitted unless conditions under Section 36B(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are fully satisfied. A Section 36B certificate is mandatory when data is not stored directly in a computer but is extracted via a hard disk connected to a CPU. The tribunal observed that it was impossible for the director to remove the hard disk in the presence of the officers and there was no evidence linking the hard disk or pen drive to the CPU or confirming that the data originated from the company’s computer. Consequently, the printouts could not be relied upon, and the adjudicating authority could not examine oral evidence on points required to be stated in the certificate. The Department’s contention that the panchnama could serve as the certificate was rejected, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Cited
- Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (299) E.L.T. 83 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Paras 23, 32]
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer — 2017 (352) E.L.T. 416 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 13, 20, 21, 22, 32]
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal — AIR 2020 SC 4908 — Distinguished [Paras 21, 22, 32]
- Global Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — Final Order Nos. 10145-10157/2024, dated 15-1-2024 by CESTAT, Ahmedabad — Distinguished [Paras 25, 26, 32]
- Popular Paints and Chemicals v. Commissioner — Final Order Nos. 52716-52718/2018, dated 6-8-2018 by CESTAT, New Delhi — Distinguished [Paras 24, 26, 32]
