Case Details: Shree Balaji Furnaces Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Alwar (2025) 37 Centax 224 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dilip Gupta, President & P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- Shri Ajay K. Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- Shri Unmesh Kumar, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant challenged duty demand and penalties raised on allegations of clandestine removal based on electronic data retrieved from computers and stored in a pen-drive during investigation. It was contended that such electronic records were not proved in accordance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that officials of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), who retrieved the data were neither examined nor offered for cross-examination despite earlier directions. The Department nevertheless relied on the electronic data. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the electronic data was inadmissible as the mandatory procedure under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for proving computer-generated evidence was not followed and the GEQD officials were not examined or subjected to cross-examination. It was observed that unverified electronic records cannot be relied upon to establish clandestine removal. Since the remaining ingot purchase file alone was insufficient to substantiate the allegations, it was held that the duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be sustained and allowed the appeals.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. — Final Order Nos. 51337-51338/2018, dated 2-4-2018 by CESTAT, New Delhi — Referred [Paras 4, 11]
- Shree Balaji Furnaces Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — Final Order No. 51140-51184/2018, dated 2-4-2018 by CESTAT, Delhi — Referred[Para 5]
