1994 (12) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
2. Inclusion of the value of peripherals in the assessable value of computers.
3. Time limitation for issuing show cause notices.
4. Jurisdiction of the Collector to adjudicate the case.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispensation of Pre-Deposit of Duty and Penalty:
The applicants sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 63,65,256.27 and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, held that the applicants had not made out a prima facie case in their favor to dispense with the pre-deposit. They did not plead financial hardship. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 30 lakh in cash by 30-4-1994, with the balance of duty and penalty recovery stayed upon compliance.

2. Inclusion of the Value of Peripherals in the Assessable Value of Computers:
The applicants initially included the value of peripherals in the assessable value of computers but later sought to exclude it. The Tribunal noted previous decisions in similar cases, including the applicants' own case (Order No. 465/88-A) and the Sunray Computers case, which held that hardware, software, and peripherals together make a workable computer and should be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal found that the prima facie case on the question of valuation was in favor of the revenue.

3. Time Limitation for Issuing Show Cause Notices:
The applicants argued that the addenda to the show cause notices set up a new case and should be treated as separate show cause notices, making the demand time-barred. The Tribunal found that the addenda merely revised the value given in the original show cause notices and were not new cases. The Tribunal held that the show cause notices were within the time limit, except for one which was only 12 days beyond six months. The Tribunal noted that the limitation period should start from the date of the addendum, but this argument was not accepted.

4. Jurisdiction of the Collector to Adjudicate the Case:
The applicants contended that the Collector had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case as only the Assistant Collector was competent under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, where no suppression was alleged. The Tribunal referred to precedent decisions which established that a superior officer could exercise the powers of a subordinate officer. Rule 6(1) of the Central Excise Rules allows the Collector to perform the duties of subordinate officers. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Collector adjudicating the case, even if it fell within the Assistant Collector's powers.

Separate Judgments:

- Member (T): Directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 30 lakh for the hearing of the appeal.
- Member (J): Proposed to hear the appeal without insisting on pre-deposit due to the limitation issue and the High Court's direction for a timely disposal.
- President: Agreed with Member (T) and directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 30 lakh by 15-1-1995 for the appeal to be heard.

Conclusion:
The majority view required the applicants to deposit Rs. 30 lakh in cash by 15-1-1995, with the balance of duty and penalty recovery stayed upon compliance. The appeal would be listed for hearing at the earliest possible date thereafter.

← Previous Next →