SWATHY COMPUTERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a manufacturer of computers. On verification of the invoices, the purchase bills for the components required for manufacturing of computers, the Department found that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the Central Excise Rules and had manufactured and cleared the computers without payment of duty. Therefore, show cause notice was issued on 11-7-1995. The petitioner requested time to file reply but even after several reminders, they did not file any reply to the show cause notice. The third respondent took up the case for adjudication. Notice was issued, the petitioner adopted dilatory tactics. The matter was taken up for adjudication. On the basis of the records, the third respondent came to the conclusion that there was clear intent to evade the payment of duty. Therefore, an order was passed as follows :-

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second and third respondents had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had clearance of 23 computers, whereas only 11 computers were cleared and therefore, if the duty payable for 11 computers is calculated that the petitioner would not have to pay the amount demanded in the impugned order. Learned counsel also submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner by the authorities and therefore, the matter may be sent back to the original authority for fresh adjudication.

(3.) Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that though the order of the second respondent-CEGAT was passed during the year 1996, this writ petition has been filed only in 1998. The conduct of the petitioner before the third respondent showed that they were adopting dilatory tactics. It is also mentioned in the counter that the assessee had now opted for Kar Vivad Samadhan scheme and that this would show that the aasessee had accepted the correctness of the demand.