Per S.L. Peeran:

The COD applications have been filed for condoning the delay in filing the supplementary appeals. The supplementary appeals were required to be filed on account of the number of show cause notices involved in this case. In view of the practice of the Tribunal in condoning the delay in filing the supplementary appeals, these applications are allowed and all the appeals are heard together.

2.These appeals arise from the order in original No. 134/88 dated 30.12.88 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore confirming a differential duty of Rs. 63,65,256.27 being duty on peripherals valued at Rs. 4,25,68,375.16 cleared by the appellants during the period from 1.3.84 to 18.5.84,30.5.84 to 30.11.84 and 1.12.84 to 17.3.85 under Section 11A of the CE Act, 1944, besides imposition a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q (1) of the CE Rules, 1944.

3. The appeals have a chequered career. The facts leading to the appeals are that the appellants are manufacturers of computer falling under erstwhile tariff item 33DD. They had supplied/cleared peripherals alongwith computers and it was alleged that they did not include the value of such peripherals in the assessable value of the computers to evade payment of duty on the value of such peripherals supplied/cleared with the computers. Therefore, they were issued with show cause notices by the Supdt, of Central Excise Range A for recovery of duty due from the appellants on the peripherals the value of which were not included in the value of components as under:

The appellants filed their reply to SI. No. 1 above and the addendum by which they have pointed out that the show cause notice and the addendum are in variance with each other i.e. while the show cause seeks to demand duty on peripherals, the addendum seeks to demand duty short paid on computers and that the penal provisions have been dropped in the addendum. It was contended by them that they had paid duty on the computer since the peripherals sold by them under separate invoices, backed by separate purchase orders were not integral part of computers and at worst only the following can be regarded as parts of computers: