Proof of manufacture is essential before central excise duty and penalties can be imposed on computer assembly activities.

Mere assembly or sale-related activity, without proof of manufacture at the business premises, cannot sustain central excise duty or consequential penalties. The demand was based on an allegation that the appellants were assembling computers, but the record referred only to sale of computer systems and computer sets, which did not establish manufacture. As the basic allegation of manufacture failed, the foundation for both duty and penalty disappeared. The original and appellate orders were therefore set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the activity undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture of computers so as to justify the demand of central excise duty and consequential penalties.

Analysis: The demand had been founded on the premise that the appellants were assembling computers. The record, however, showed that the proceedings themselves referred to sale of computer systems and computer sets, and the Tribunal found that this did not establish manufacture at the business premises. Once the basic allegation of manufacture failed, the foundation for duty demand and penalty also failed.

Conclusion: The allegation of manufacture was not sustainable and the duty demand and penalties could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the original authority and the appellate authority were set aside and all appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere assembly or sale-related activity, without proof of manufacture, cannot sustain an excise duty demand or consequential penalty.

---