TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Overturns Excise Duty Demand on Computer Sales; Case Sent Back for Re-evaluation Due to Lack of Evidence.</h1> <h3>Prompt Systems & Software Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot And HB Electronics Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot</h3> Prompt Systems & Software Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot And HB Electronics Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot - TMI Issues involved: Confirmation of demand of Central Excise Duty on sale of computer systems, failure to examine documents by Commissioner (Appeals).Confirmation of demand of Central Excise Duty on sale of computer systems:The appeal was filed against the confirmation of demand of Central Excise Duty on the sale of computer systems. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant was engaged in the manufacture of computer systems and trading activity of computer parts. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal to the extent that the resale of parts would not be dutiable. However, the main contention was that the value of trading goods was also being clubbed with the value of computer systems. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh after considering the documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty without examining the documents as directed by the Tribunal, leading to the appeal being allowed as the order was based on presumptions without proper examination of invoices.Failure to examine documents by Commissioner (Appeals):The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty without examining the documents, despite specific directions in the remand order of the Tribunal to pass the order after considering the documents. The Commissioner's order was based on the belief of the trade practice at the material time without detailed examination of any invoices. The order merely repeated the allegations from the show cause notice without providing any independent findings. As a result, the order was set aside as it was based on presumptions and failed to fulfill the obligation of proving that the manufacturing activity had taken place. The appeals were allowed in light of the failure to examine the documents and lack of merit in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
