2005 (7) TMI 219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated the land, building, machinery etc. and imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) and also demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. The period in dispute is 1-10-89 to 25-3-94. At the outset we may point out that under Section 11AB interest is not demandable for the period prior 26-9-96. 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of computers and in that capacity supplied several computers during the impugned period to various customers, while doing so they also supplied the peripherals of computers. They have not taken out a Central Excise Registration. The Department contends that the value of the bought out items should be added to the assessable value of the computers supplied ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ipherals are supplied along with the computer as one unit their value should be added is not acceptable as that can be done only when they are essential parts of the computer. 5. The second contention of the appellants is that while computing the demand the department has taken the value of the computer resold by them after procuring them from various vendors. We examined this contention. The Commissioner in his order examined the evidence produced by the appellants in this regard and whenever such evidence suggested that computers were bought from vendors, he took that fact into consideration while computing the duty liability. Further the appellants themselves have given a list of computers bought out by them. According to them they pu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessable value has to be worked out after giving allowances to statutory duties that are leviable on such goods. We find merit in the contention the duty has to be recomputed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra. 6. In view of what has been discussed above we hold that the value of the peripheral have to be excluded from the assessable value of the computers alleged to have been removed without payment of duty. We hold that extended period of limitation is applicable. We hold that the price at which the computers are sold has to be treated as cum duty price, and the actual duty payable has to be calculated in the light of the Supreme Court's decision cited supra. Penalty has to be re-determined. Interest under....