TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (7) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellants. Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The appellants herein are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune, classifying Microprocessor Trainers and Prom Programmers manufactured by them under T.I. 33DD of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff (instead of under T.I. 68 as claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applied for a Central Excise Licence nor followed any of the Excise procedures. In October, 1986, the premises of the appellants were raided by the officers of the Central Excise Department on the basis of intelligence collected that the appellants were evading payment of duty on the above items which the Department held classifiable under T.I. 33DD as computers. The statement of the Partner of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....output devices and CPU and storage device; hence, even though the products did not have the normal computer applications, they still would fall within the definition of computers. Accordingly, he confirmed the demand of duty; however, holding that the problem related to classification and there was no mala fide, he did not impose any penalty. 4. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran and Shri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssor trainers used for training purposes and prom programmers are not considered as computers or peripheral items and hence do not attract duty under T.I. 33DD even during the period 1981-85 when computers and peripherals, all sorts, were excisable. We see great force in this submission. We accept the contention that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that the two items in dispute were....