SCAN COMPUTER CONSULTANCY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K. Das, J. -
(1.)HEARD both sides and perused the records.
(2.)IT is seen from the show cause notice that appellant was purchasing raw material, inputs and computer parts from the open market and assembling in their premises and selling as computer system. It was proposed that computer system would be classifiable under heading 8471000 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the appellant cleared without obtaining Central Excise registration. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,90,363/ - alongwith interest and penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) set -aside the penalty on appellant. We find that Revenue initiated proceedings against the several persons in assembling of parts and selling the computer system. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Macro Tech. Pvt. Limited & 4 others, vide final order No. A/1580 -1584/WZB/AHD/2008 dated 01.08.2008, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. For the purpose of proper appreciation, relevant portion of the order is reproduced: -
The short issue involved in all the present appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner is as to whether buying various computer parts and installing the same would amount to manufacture of computer system or not. The Commissioner has dropped the proceedings by observing as under: -
30. I am also of the opinion that supplying CPU, Key board and printer together after procuring from market and installing these in the office or at the residence of a customer will not amount to manufacture of a computer system. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. CMS Computers (P) Limited reported at, 2005 (182) ELT 20 (SC) has held that monitor or printer is not an essential part of computer. These are peripheral items. There are of enabling provisions in the Central Excise law to consider above activities as amounting to manufacturer of computer system and there is no such term used in the heading 84.71 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. We find that issue is no more res -integra and stands settled by the Tribunals decision in the case of Commissioner vs. M/s. Wipro Information Technology Limited - : 1998 (99) ELT 343 (Tri.) as also in the case of
CCE, Bangalore vs. Wipro Limited (Infotech Group) : 2002 (141) ELT 527 (Tri. Bang.). Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. PSI Data Systems reported in : 1997 (89) ELT 3 (SC) has held that monitors and printers having been bought from the market and being duty paid and supplied alongwith monitors and printers cannot be held to be an activity amounting to manufacture of computer systems. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner and accordingly reject the appeals filed by the Revenue.
(3.)IN view of the above discussion and following the Tribunals earlier order in the case of Macro Tech P. Limited (supra), we set -aside the impugned order and appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.