2003 (12) TMI 548 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on alleged manufacture of computers by Compu Shop.
2. Burden of proof on department to show manufacturing.
3. Lack of evidence in the notice to substantiate manufacturing claim.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a duty demand on computers allegedly manufactured by Compu Shop between April 1993 to October 1994 in Panchim, Goa. The department issued a notice based on an investigation, proposing duty payment. The assesses denied manufacturing, stating there was no evidence to support the claim. The Deputy Collector rejected this defense. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that while the department had the onus to prove manufacturing, the assesses failed to provide evidence of only trading, leading to dismissal of the appeal with minor duty reduction. The appeal challenged this decision.

2. The notice issued to Compu Shop lacked evidence to support the manufacturing claim. The statement of Anil Joglekar, representing his wife, a partner in Compu Shop, did not provide any justification for alleging manufacturing. The notice did not indicate any manufacturing activity, and the appellant contended they were engaged in trading computers. The burden of proof rested with the department to establish manufacturing, which they failed to do. The Commissioner's stance that the appellant needed to prove non-manufacturing was deemed unacceptable. Due to the absence of evidence supporting computer manufacturing by the appellant, the department's case was deemed weak.

3. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal concluded that the lack of evidence regarding computer manufacturing by the appellant was crucial in overturning the decision. The burden of proof was emphasized, highlighting the department's failure to substantiate the manufacturing claim. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of evidence and burden of proof in such cases.