1998 (6) TMI 254 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether activities carried out by the appellants amounted to the manufacture of Computer Systems.
2. Whether penalty is imposable and is correctly on Shri B.J. Bhasin.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around whether the activities conducted by the appellants constituted the manufacturing of Computer Systems. The appellants argued that they merely purchased computers from a supplier and made minor modifications before selling them. The Revenue contended that the purchased items were parts that needed assembly, and since duty payment evidence was lacking, duty was rightfully demanded. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including the invoice, and concluded that the purchased items were complete computer systems, not just parts. The practice of delivering systems in SKD condition was common in the industry, and the installation process did not amount to manufacturing. The Tribunal found that the appellants' actions did not constitute manufacturing, as evidenced by the installation records and the lack of detailed consideration in the impugned order.

2. The second issue pertains to the imposition of penalties, particularly on Shri B.J. Bhasin. The Tribunal noted that the burden of proving non-duty payment rested on the department, and in this case, no inquiries were made to ascertain duty payment from the supplier. The Tribunal highlighted the legal principle that goods purchased in the open market are deemed duty paid unless proven otherwise. Considering the lack of comprehensive documentation from both the Revenue and the appellants, the Tribunal decided not to further delay justice by remanding the case for additional verification. Ultimately, based on the findings regarding the manufacturing activities and the burden of proof, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty, ruling in favor of the appellants and providing consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS, in the cited judgment, addressed the issues of manufacturing activities related to Computer Systems and the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, including invoices and installation records, to determine that the appellants' actions did not amount to manufacturing but rather installation. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof regarding duty payment and deemed the lack of thorough documentation as a reason not to prolong the legal process. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty, ruling in favor of the appellants.