TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (1) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereof. A further penalty of Rs. 50,000/-has been imposed on Shri R. Balakrishnan, General Manager thereof. 2. The matter concerns the alleged manufacture of Computer systems by M/s. Integrated Data Systems Ltd., as contained in the show cause notice etc dated 10-7-95. The Department alleges that what was purchased by the appellants was merely sub-assemblies of Computer system and these were then assembled into computer system and supplied to Customers. As against this, the appellants urge that they merely indulged in trading activities inasmuch as that they purchased Computer systems and they may have added some peripherals and software to it. But this activity did not amount to manufacture, particularly in terms of the law laid dow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers to supply computer systems. However, the said order is silent on these claims backed by these evidences. Learned Advocate also submits that when the impugned Order-in-Original was passed, the Adjudicating authority did not have the benefit of the case law of O.R.G Systems supra. Under these circumstances, the Order-in-Original impugned has erroneously concluded that their activity amounted to manufacture of computers. 5. Heard Shri S. Kannan, learned JDR who reiterates the Order-in-Original and submits that what was sold by the appellants was complete Computer systems as has been admitted by the customers. He further submits that the statement of the General Manager was equivocal to the fact that they were assembling and manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same to computers, there is no invoice by invoice examination of this submission in the order. (b) Whereas the appellants had even at the original adjudicating stage submitted that they had purchased complete Computer systems and had laid evidence in the form of Invoices which even showed payment of Excise duty thereof (one such specimen having already been noted above), there is no discussion in the said order to how the further activities undertaken by the appellants still amounted to manufacture of a computer system which was then supplied to the customers. (c) The main tenure of the order impugned is that since complete computer systems was supplied to the customers, they were manufactured by the appellants. We feel it is no....