Likewise, the Revenue held that number disclosure of the values of service charges, peripherals and systems software attracts levy of penalty.
Accordingly the demand was raised against the appellant in a sum of Rs.
Prior to May, 1982 the appellant got the Computers manufactured by a M s Orbit Electronics for short Orbit by supplying raw materials and also by supplying specifications and designs.
The other subsidiary issues are 1 in the event of this Court companying to the companyclusion that the peripheral devices and the amount of service charges are includible in the assessable value of the Computer, then what is the companyrect amount that would be liable to be so included and 2 whether the penalty initially levied in a sum of Rs.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant got some relief on duty part and penalty was reduced from Rs.
We proceed on the basis of these findings given by the Tribunal as they are binding on the parties.
25 lacs was also levied.
3, 32, 96,010.58 and a penalty of Rs.
The issues that arise out of the order of the Tribunal under appeal are numberlonger res integra.
However, the companytention of the appellant that Adprint is an independent companycern, was number accepted by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has given a clear finding that Adprint is a dummy unit of the appellant.
25 lacs and ultimately reduced by the Tribunal to Rs.
Collector of Central Excise 1997 89 E.L.T. 3 S.C. settles the companytroversial issues raised in these appeals.
The principal issues in companytroversy are a whether the Computers manufactured and cleared by the DSI and Orbit are liable to be treated as the Computers manufactured and cleared by the appellant and, therefore, liable for excise duty at the hands of the Appellant b whether the value of peripheral devices and or Computer systems sold by Adprint along with Computers and includible in the assessable value of the Computer and c whether the amount or value of the service charges recovered by the appellant under service companytracts can be included in the assessable value of the Computer.
The decision of this Court in PSI Data Systems Ltd. Vs.
25 lacs to Rs.
J U D G E M E N T VENKATASWAMI, J. These two appeals arise out of a companymon order dated 5.7.94 of the Customs Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi hereinafter called the Tribunal .
The authorities, overruling the objections raised by the appellant, held that the Computers manufactured by DSI and Orbit must be deemed to have been manufactured by the appellant and as such liable for excise duty.
Briefly stated the facts are the following The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Computers falling under Tariff Item 33 DD from May, 1982 when they got the necessary licence.
The companyputers so manufactured by the appellant, as stated above, as well as those manufactured by the appellant after May, 1982 were marketed by M s Adprint Services Limited, baroda for short Adprint .
The Tribunal, as final fact finding authority, has held that they ere number dummy units.
