Duty demand based on data from computer print-out without corroborative evidence unsustainable

CESTAT Kolkata held that the data resumed from the computer print out alone cannot be relied upon to demand duty, without any corroborating evidence. Accordingly, duty demand set aside.

Facts- The present Appeals are filed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner vide which the Commissioner has confirmed Central Excise duty demand of Rs.1,82,39,247/-, including Cess along with interest, on the ground that the Appellant Company, M/s Attitude Alloys (P) Ltd. has clandestinely cleared 3474.950 MT of “Ferro Silico Manganese valued Rs.11,10,61,111/- without payment of duty. Penalty of Rs.1,82,39,247/- was also imposed u/s. 11AC of the said Act on the Company. Penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- imposed on Shri. Sitaram Agarwal, and Rs. 10,00,000/- on Shri. Arun Kumar Kadmawala, both Directors of the Company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant Company and both the Directors filed appeals before this Tribunal.

Conclusion- Held that the entire case has been built up on the basis of the data retrieved from the pen drive and the subsequent statements recorded from the responsible persons. Thus, authenticity of the data is very essential to substantiate the allegations. The pen drive has been recovered from Shri. Ajat Kr. Behera and hence his statement is very crucial regarding the data available in the pen drive. It is a fact on record that Shri Ajay Kr. Behara has been employed only 4-5 months earlier to the date of recovery of the said data. Hence, the evidentiary value of his statement with respect to the data for the earlier period does not carry any weight. Pen drive is a floating device and unless the computer from which the electronic record was produced is identified, the data recovered from the pen drive cannot be admitted as evidence.

Tribunal Ahmedabad, in the case of Kumar Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, has held that demand of duty cannot be held merely on the basis of some entries available in the private registers. Positive, tangible evidences are required to confirmed demands on clandestine removal.