TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposing penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Central Excise officers, who visited the appellants premises on 15-7-1994 and searched the premises, found that the party was engaged in the manufacture and sale of computer sets falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 8471.00 of the Central Excise Tariff without necessary registration with the Central Excise Department and without observing other necessary formalities under the CESA and the Rules thereunder; that the appellants were also found to have engaged in the purchase and sale of various computer accessories of foreign origin without any documents evidencing legal import and possession of such goods; that the officers seized such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act and impose penalty on them under Section 112 of the Act; that the appellants contested the show cause notice and that the Commissioner adjudicated the dispute as per the order impugned in the present appeal. 3. We have carefully examined the impugned order and connected records. We have also heard learned Advocate, Shri A.P. Mathur for the appellants and learned SDR, Shri K. Srivastava for the respondent. 4. Learned Counsel has reiterated the grounds of the appeal and has prayed for allowing the appeal. Learned SDR has reiterated the discussions and findings of the adjudicating authority and has urged to reject the appeal. 5. On the question of recovery of Central Excise duty on the compu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given to the officers, had clearly admitted, in answer to a specific query, that they purchased accessories of computer systems from market and assembled them into computer sets. There was no denial of the fact that the appellants had so assembled computer parts into computer systems and sold the same to various customers without Central Excise registration and without observing other necessary Central Excise formalities. The Department s allegation as contained in the show cause notice in this behalf, thus, stood proved. It was on this basis that the lower appellate authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a penalty after holding that the process of assembling the aforesaid units into computer sets, which were distinct and diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- on the party. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order, we have found that the necessary requirements of Section 111 of the Customs Act for holding the goods liable to confiscation were not satisfied. Neither was it alleged nor was it found by the adjudicating authority as to which particular clause under Section 111 of the Act was sought to be invoked for confiscating the goods. Moreover, there is no finding in the order of the adjudicating authority as to the foreign origin of the goods. The first and foremost requirement for holding goods to be confiscated under Section 111 is a finding that the goods are of foreign origin. Such finding is lacking in the impugned order. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the order of confiscation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
