Rashmi Cement Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that the allegation of clandestine removal of goods cannot be sustained on the basis of documents recovered from such third-party premises. Accordingly, issue answered in favour of the appellant.
Facts- The appellant-companies are in appeal against the impugned order wherein central excise duty totally amounting to Rs.67,28,17,794/- has been demanded under Section 11A(10) of the Central Excise Act,1944, along with interest and penalty thereon, for the period from 2011-12 to 2012-13. The other appellants, acting in the capacity of directors of the appellant-companies during the relevant period, have also filed appeals against the penalties imposed on them under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the ld. adjudicating authority in the impugned order.
Conclusion- Held that the charge of clandestine removal of goods cannot be proved on the basis of private records recovered during the course of investigation in the absence of any corroborative evidence in support. Therefore, the said issue also stands answered in favour of the appellants.
Held that a print-out generated from a personal computer or pendrive, seized during the course of investigation, cannot be treated as admissible evidence unless the statutory condition prescribed under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act is complied with. Admittedly, the said condition has not been complied with in this case. Hence, the said print-outs recovered during the course of investigation are not admissible evidence to corroborate the allegation of clandestine removal of goods against the appellants in the present case. Therefore, the said issue is answered in favour of the appellants.
