TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assembled at the site of customers. This activity is held as manufacturing by the Apex Court. On merits, the argument of the appellants is unacceptable to us that is not manufacturing computer system. On limitation, we find that appellant has a case in their favour, as against the very same impugned order, in Revenue’s appeal, the bench while dismissing the appeal, held that there is no fraud, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main appellant on the ground that they have evaded Central Excise duty on the computer system assembled at the site of their clients from bought out items. The period involved in this case is 1993 - 94 to December 1997. The adjudicating authority after considering the various submissions made in defence on the show cause notice dated 18th May 1998, confirmed the demands raised with interest and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are hit by limitation, for the reason that there was no allegation in show cause notice of any suppression or clandestine removal of the goods. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal dated 13/02/2004; wherein on the facts, it was held that there is no allegation in the show cause notice of fraud, collusion, mis-statement, suppression of fact or contravention of the provisions of the Act or R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of fraud, collusion, mis-statement, suppression of fact or contravention of provisions of Act/Rules with an intend to evade payment of duty, to invoke the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act are present. In these circumstances, mandatory penalty under Section 11AC is not imposable 11AC in the light of the Apex Court decision in Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC). Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
