PROMPT COMPUTER SERVICES Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against Order No. V -Adj.(CH 84) 15 -260/90/13, dated 10 -3 -1991 of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -II. The impugned order has demanded duty of Rs. 1,00,480.25 and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that appellants were manufacturing computers, computer systems, computer peripherals and other parts, which were liable to central excise duty on ad valorem basis. Appellants filed separate price lists in respect of goods sold in wholesale as well as on goods sold to M/s. Computer Devices. A notice was issued on 12th October, 1990 proposing to assess the goods sold to M/s. Computer Devices at the same price as that of other wholesale buyers. The order impugned has confirmed that demand.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the demand has been issued invoking extended period as provided in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and that there was no justification for invoking the extended period as the case did not involve suppression of facts and other elements mentioned in the proviso. This submission is made on the basis that the allegation, in the show cause notice was that the appellant filed price list in Pro Forma II in respect of goods sold to Computer Devices with a view to evade payment of proper central excise duty. It has been submitted that M/s. Computer Devices were a separate firm and since no allegation or finding exists that there was mutuality of interest between them or flow back of funds, there could be no justification for treating the sale as to 'related persons'. It was also submitted that even though the partners of M/s. Computer Devices were all wives of the Directors of manufacturing company, that relationship in itself could not be the basis to the construe the sale to 'related persons'.