9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 3,45,291.35 on 87 computers, manufactured and cleared without payment of duty, was confirmed. A demand of Rs. 9,135/- is also confirmed on the two computers seized from the premises of appellants and both the computers ordered to be confiscated with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 40,000/- was also imposed on the appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17-8-1989, the business premises of the appellants were visited by the officers of Revenue department and it was found that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of computers and cleared the same without payment of duty. Two computer systems , valued at Rs. 58,000/-, which were found in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d some challans showing that spare parts are being supplied to these Engineers for assembling the computers. He also submitted that for assembly of the computers, he is paying Rs. 250/- to Rs. 500/- to the Engineers. S/Shri Anirudh Junnarkar and Shaji Thomas could not be produced by the appellants for investigation. Therefore, no enquiry was made from them. The enquiries made from the two Engineers revealed that they had not undertaken any assembling of computers at their places. They had assembled computers at appellants premises. 5. On the scrutiny of record, it was found that the appellants cleared 85 computers without payment of duty. A show cause notice was issued and, thereafter, the adjudication order was passed. 6. Ld. Counsel, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the appellant firm, on the visit of the Central Excise Officers, admitted the manufacture of the computers. On that stage, the appellants had not disclosed the fact that the computers are being manufactured through independent manufacturers and engineers on payment of job charges. He, further, submits that the appellants named four engineers, who alleged to have been manufacturing the computers on their behalf but out of these four, the appellants had produced only two engineers, who later on admitted before the Revenue authorities the computers are actually being assembled at appellants premises. He, further, submits that during the enquiries made by the Revenue, Sh. Deepak K. Daryani, the owner of the appellant firm, could not ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent job workers and not the appellants. In view of admission made by Deepak K. Daryani, proprietor and Deepak Ahuja, Manager in their statements which were not retracted by them, the denial of cross-examination of the persons, who during the investigation, admitted that the computers were actually assembled at the premises of the appellants, is not in violation of principles of natural justice. 11. In view of above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned order confirming the demand of duty on the computers manufactured by the appellants. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of case, the redemption fine on 2 computers valued at Rs. 58.000/- is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 20,000/- and penalty is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
