2000 (1) TMI 475 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand on computer systems and CPUs assembled by the appellants.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.
3. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Retraction of statements by witnesses.
5. Cross-examination request by the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed appeals against the order confirming the demand on computer systems and CPUs they assembled without paying duty. The central excise officers found that the appellants were manufacturing computer systems without a license and clearing them without duty payment. The statements of individuals involved confirmed the assembly of computers. The appellants argued they were engaged in trading activities, but the tribunal found no evidence to support this claim. The appeals were dismissed due to lack of merit.

2. The Collector of Central Excise had ordered the confiscation of goods and imposed penalties on the appellants. The tribunal noted that the statements of individuals involved, admitting to the assembly of computers, were crucial evidence. The retraction of statements after a significant delay did not help the appellants' case. The tribunal found no violation of natural justice as relevant documents were provided, and the request for cross-examination was not deemed necessary. The appeals were dismissed based on the evidence presented.

3. The appellants alleged a violation of natural justice as they were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses or access seized documents. However, the tribunal found that the statements of the individuals involved, who admitted to assembling computers, were sufficient evidence. The denial of cross-examination did not impact the case as the statements were crucial and the appellants did not dispute the seizure of goods during the visit. The appeals were dismissed due to lack of merit in this regard.

4. The retraction of statements by witnesses was a key point of contention. The tribunal noted that the statements were made voluntarily and retracted after a significant delay. The initial admission of assembling computers without a license was considered valid evidence. The retraction of statements did not change the fact that the appellants were engaged in manufacturing activities without proper authorization, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

5. The appellants requested cross-examination of witnesses, which was denied by the adjudicating authority. However, the tribunal found that the statements of the witnesses, including a partner of the appellant firm, admitting to the assembly of computers, were crucial evidence. The denial of cross-examination did not impact the case as the key facts were established through the statements and other documents provided. The appeals were dismissed based on the evidence and lack of merit in the cross-examination request.