2006 (10) TMI 294 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand and penalty for clearing computers without duty payment.
2. Appellant's contention of trading in computers and parts from various suppliers.
3. Revenue's argument of lack of evidence on suppliers and assembly/manufacture of computers.
4. Appellant's defense based on bank drafts, invoices, and supplier confirmation.

Analysis:

1. The judgment dealt with the confirmation of demand and penalty against the appellant for clearing computers without payment of duty. The appellant, a hardware and general supplier, was accused of manufacturing computers. The demand was based on the belief that the appellant assembled or manufactured computers and cleared them without paying the required duty.

2. The appellant contended that they were solely engaged in trading computers and parts, not in manufacturing or assembling. They claimed to have purchased computers from various suppliers and sold them to customers. The appellant provided a list of suppliers, including M/s. Avanti Enterprises, M/s. Sinath Enterprises, M/s. Broadway Computers, and others. They argued that all payments to suppliers were made through bank drafts, supported by certificates from the bank.

3. The revenue authority disputed the appellant's claims, stating that during the inquiry, only one supplier, M/s. Broadway Computers, was found at the provided address. Other suppliers could not be located. The lack of evidence regarding the purchase of computers from multiple suppliers weakened the appellant's defense. Additionally, discrepancies were noted in the invoices, further casting doubt on the appellant's assertions.

4. In response to the allegations, the appellant presented evidence such as bank certificates, invoices, and a confirmation letter from M/s. Broadway Computers. The supplier confirmed supplying computers to the appellant and clarified that the computers were assembled at their premises without central excise duty payment. The tribunal found no tangible evidence at the appellant's premises supporting the claim of manufacturing or assembling computers. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deeming the demand and penalties unsustainable and allowed the appeals, setting aside the earlier decision.