Full Judgment
Penalties were also imposed on M/s. Nelco Electronics & Electricals Ltd. and M/s. Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. The appeal filed by M/s. Nelco Electronics & Electricals Ltd. had already been dismissed by the Tribunal under Final Order No. E/1738/98-B1, dated 3-12-1998 while diposing of the Appeal No. E/926/92-B1. We have no concern with the proceedings against M/s. Pieco Electronics and Electricals Ltd. 2. When the matter was called no one appeared for the appellants. The notice for today's hearing had been issued on 18-6-1999 and a copy of the notice was also endorsed to the Counsel on record. The notice had been duly served on the appellants on 24-6-1999 as per acknowledgement card on record. As it is an old matter in which the show cause notice was issued in the year 1989, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing the SDR.3. We have carefully considered the matter and have gone through the facts on record. We find that the appellants had manufactured CPUs from the parts imported by them. The CPU was a separately classifiable excisable commodity than the parts like windchester drives, floppy disc drives, circuit boards, power transformers and other pressed components. The appellants' plea that they had used the screw driver technology in assembling the CPU had been rightly rejected by the adjudicating authority. It was held that there was no doubt that the activity undertaken by the appellants was a manufacturing activity. The appellant had already voluntarily paid the excise duty leviable.
4. We find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable and dutiable goods without obtaining any Central Excise licence and without following any Central Excise procedure. They had removed the goods without payment of Central Excise duty. The adjudicating authority had discussed the various pleas taken by the appellants and had held that the assessee had not submitted any price list and classification list and not followed any Central Excise procedure. They had not sought any clarification with regard to their duty liability. He had held that there was suppression of the facts and that but for the searches and seizures the case could have remained undetected. Keeping in view the contravention and the conduct of the appellant he had imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on M/s. Hansa Electronics (India) Limited. Keeping in view and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere the view taken by the adjudicating authority. As a result, appeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly.