Manufacture by assembly of computer parts justified excise duty, while customs confiscation failed without foreign-origin findings.

Assembling market-purchased computer parts into complete computer sets was treated as manufacture because the finished product was commercially distinct in name, character and use, so Central Excise duty applied; the penalty was considered excessive and reduced. Confiscation of seized computer accessories under the Customs Act could not stand because the adjudication did not identify the applicable clause under Section 111 and did not record a finding that the goods were of foreign origin; in the absence of those foundational findings, the related redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether assembling computer parts into computer sets amounted to manufacture and attracted Central Excise duty, and whether the duty demand and penalty were sustainable; (ii) whether the seized computer accessories were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act and whether the consequential penalty could stand.

Issue (i): whether assembling computer parts into computer sets amounted to manufacture and attracted Central Excise duty, and whether the duty demand and penalty were sustainable

Analysis: The records showed sale of 15 computer sets and the proprietor had admitted that computer accessories were purchased from the market and assembled into computer sets. The assembled product was distinct in name, character, and use from the components and was known in the market as computer sets. The demand of duty was therefore sustained. The penalty, however, was considered excessive in the facts and circumstances and was reduced.

Conclusion: The demand of Central Excise duty was upheld and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000.

Issue (ii): whether the seized computer accessories were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act and whether the consequential penalty could stand

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 111 required a clear finding that the goods were of foreign origin and fell within a specified clause of the provision. The adjudication order did not identify the applicable clause and contained no finding establishing foreign origin. In the absence of these foundational findings, confiscation could not be sustained, and the penalty under Section 112 also failed.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in relation to the customs confiscation and penalty, while the excise duty demand was maintained with a reduced penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act requires a specific invocation of the applicable clause and a finding that the goods are of foreign origin; absent such foundational findings, the confiscation and any penalty under Section 112 cannot be sustained. Assembling market-purchased components into a commercially distinct computer set amounts to manufacture for central excise purposes.

---