Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
En Ar En Computers (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 17 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(110)ECC565, 2006ECR565(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the common impugned order. In this case the demand is confirmed and penalty was imposed on the ground that M/s. Hardware & General Suppliers(appellant) manufactured the computer and cleared without payment of duty.
2. The contention of the appellant is that they are only trading in computers and computer parts. They have purchased computers from the following concerns and sold the same to M/s. En Ar En Computers (P) Ltd. and other customers:
1. M/s. Avanti Enterprises, Bombay
2. M/s. Sainath Enterprises, Bombay
3. M/s. Broadway Computers, New Delhi
4. M/s. Paresh Enterprises, Bombay
5. M/s. Microshop, Kanpur
6. M/s. Computer Drom, Bareilly
7. M/s. Maxel Trading Co., Bombay The contention is that at the time of visit, there was no evidence which shows that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture or assembly of computers. The contention is that all the payments to their suppliers were made through bank draft and the appellant relied upon the certificate given by the bank which shows that the drafts were prepared in the name of above mentioned firms.
3. The contention of the revenue is that on enquiry only one supplier was found i.e. M/s. Broadway Computers. Others were not found at a given address, therefore, the appellants' defence that they have purchased the computers from various suppliers without any evidence. Even in the case of Broadway Computers, there are two invoices showing the same No. one is regarding computer system and other is regarding sale of some parts. The contention is also that as the appellant failed to show that they have purchased computers, therefore, demand was rightly made.
4. In this case demand is on the ground that the appellant assembled/manufactured the computers and cleared without payment of duty. The appellant specifically took the plea before the adjudicating authority that they have purchased the computers from various suppliers and handed over the invoices regarding the purchase of computers. The computers were purchased in the year 1992 to Oct. 95 whereas the enquiry was conducted in the year 1997. The appellant also produced the bank certificate showing that drafts were prepared from their account in the name of above mentioned supplier of computers. One supplier i.e. M/s. Broadway Computers which was found at the given address has specifically written to the Supdt. of Central Excise that they had supplied computers to the appellant and the computers were assembled at their place and they were not paying any Central Excise Duty. Further we find that at the appellant's premises, there was nothing found which shows that they were engaged in assembling of computers. In these circumstances, we find that demand and penalties are not sustainable and set aside. Appeals are allowed.
Order dictated in the open Court.