Manufacture and extended limitation in computer system assembly disputes, with demand and penalty failing for lack of evasion allegations.

Assembly of computer systems at customers' sites from bought-out items was treated as manufacture, following Supreme Court authority, so the assessee's challenge on that point failed. However, the duty demand and penalty were held barred by limitation because the show cause notice contained no allegation of fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty. On that basis, extended limitation and the consequential penalty under Section 11AC could not be sustained. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside, and the appeals were allowed notwithstanding the adverse finding on manufacture.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether assembly of computer systems at the customers' site from bought-out items amounted to manufacture; (ii) Whether the duty demand and penalty were barred by limitation in the absence of allegations of fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty.

Issue (i): Whether assembly of computer systems at the customers' site from bought-out items amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: The activity involved assembly of computer systems at the site of customers. The Tribunal noted that such activity has been held by the Apex Court to amount to manufacture. The contention that the process did not result in manufacture of computer systems was therefore rejected on merits.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand and penalty were barred by limitation in the absence of allegations of fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the very same case had earlier been considered in Revenue's appeal, where it was held that the show cause notice contained no allegation of fraud, collusion, misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade duty. Following that view, the Tribunal held that the impugned order could not survive, as the demand and consequential penalty were unsustainable on limitation.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty were set aside on limitation, and the appeals were allowed, notwithstanding the adverse finding on manufacture.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of allegations of fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or misstatement with intent to evade duty in the show cause notice, extended limitation and mandatory penalty under Section 11AC cannot be sustained.

---