- (1.) This Appeal is against the Judgment of the Tribunal dated 24th November, 1998.
(2.) The Respondents manufactured mini computer processing system of the following models-- "(I) CMS-II, CPU with floppy drive and keyboard. (ii) CMS PC CPU with floppy drive and keyboard. (iii) CMS PC/xt - CPU with floppy drive and keyboard. (iv) CMS PC/at - with keyboard, winchester drive and floppy drive. (v) CMS mini CPU with keyboard and floppy drive. "prior to March 1987 computers were totally exempt from payment of duty. Therefore, the respondents were clearing the computers without paying the duty. With effect from 1st march, 1987, computers became a dutiable item. The Respondents, therefore, filed a classification list which was approved. In this classification list they did not include monitors and printers. The Respondents also claimed benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C. E. , dated 1st March, 1986. The relevant portion of the notification reads as follows:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise rules, 1944, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 85/84-Central Excises, dated the 17th March, 1985, the Central government hereby exempts the excisable goods of the description specified in the Annexure below and falling under the Schedule to the Central excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the "specified goods") , and cleared for home consumption on or after the 1st day of april in any financial year, by a manufacturer from one or more factories,- (a) xxxxxx (b) xxxxxx (c) xxxxxx 2. xxxxxx
(3.) Nothing contained in this notification shall apply if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption,- (a) by a manufacturer, from one or more factories, or (b) from any factory, by one or more manufacturers, had exceeded rupees one hundred and fifty lakhs in the preceding financial year". Show cause notices were issued to the respondents claiming that monitors and printers were part of the computers. It was clained that the value of monitors and printers was required to be included in the value of the computers. It was claimed that if these were included then Respondents would not be entitled to the benefit of the Notification inasmuch as the turnover of the Respondents would then be beyond the limit specified in the notification. The demand against them was confirmed by the Collector. However, the tribunal has by the impugned Judgment set aside the demand by holding that the demand was beyond time as the extended period under section 11 (A) was not available. 3. Before us very fairly it was not disputed that the Respondents do not manufacture monitors and printers. It is fairly stated that they buy these from the market and supply to customers if customers require them. It was also fairly not disputed that monitors and printers were supplied in approximately 30% of the cases only. It was also not disputed that the monitors and printers supplied by the respondents were duty paid items which had been bought from the market.;