2006 (7) TMI 236 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Manufacture and clearance of computers without payment of duty, show cause notice for contravention of Central Excise Rules, adjudication process, confirmation of duty demand, confiscation of seized computers, penalty imposition, reduction of penalty on appeal, discrepancy in the number of cleared computers, request for fresh adjudication.

Manufacture and Clearance without Payment of Duty:
The writ petitioner, a computer manufacturer, was found to have contravened Central Excise Rules by manufacturing and clearing computers without paying duty. A show cause notice was issued in 1995, but the petitioner failed to respond despite reminders. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,43,412 and confiscated two computers valued at Rs. 40,000. A penalty of Rs. 50,000 was also imposed under various rules. An appeal was filed, resulting in a reduction of penalty but confirmation of the order in all other aspects.

Discrepancy in Cleared Computers and Fresh Adjudication Request:
The petitioner contended that only 11 computers were cleared, not 23 as assumed by the authorities, which would impact the duty payable. They argued for a fresh adjudication, claiming lack of opportunity and errors in the assessment. However, the court noted that the discrepancy was raised only at the appellate stage, not before the original authority. The delay in filing the writ petition and the petitioner's adoption of dilatory tactics were also highlighted. The court found that the adjudicating authority thoroughly examined the documents, including invoices showing clearance of 23 computers, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's arguments.

Final Decision:
The court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to entertain the petitioner's plea for fresh adjudication due to the delayed filing, lack of timely objections, and the thorough examination conducted by the adjudicating authority. The court mentioned that the petitioner's participation in the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme did not affect the dismissal of the petition.