9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which duty demand was raised against them as detailed therein for having manufactured/assembled and cleared the computers/data processors called JCL 6000 data station and its various units such as ADCs, Card, Break up Board, etc. without payment of duty and without getting registration under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no evidence to prove that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture/assembly of computers. The data JCL 6000 chromatography data system assembled by them is not a computer and it can be used without computers also. He has also contended that the evidence adduced by the appellants to show that in fact they had purchased the computers and other raw materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en contested by the Department. The adjudicating authority accepted and relied upon those bills to negative the plea of the department that appellants were manufacturing computers. The appellants have also furnished the details of the computers purchased from the market and sold to various buyers which are detailed at page 37 of the order-in-original by the adjudicating authority and the correctness of these details had not been doubted by the department. The adjudicating authority accepted the correctness of these details while passing the order- in-original. 5. Regarding the purchase of the raw materials/components from the market by the appellants, the department has no doubt placed on record four bills which have been referred in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documentary evidence referred to above which amply proves that alleged admission of Vipin Vohra, partner of the appellants firm and a non-technical person, was factually incorrect. The adjudicating authority, as we find from the adjudication order, had recorded a definite findings after considering the entire documentary evidence that the appellants were not engaged in the manufacture of computers but these were their bought out goods. The appellants were only producing/assembling JCL 6000 data station system, which could be a part of the computer and even could be used without computer. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the findings of the adjudicating authority regarding the non-manufacture of the computers by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
