Per K.S. Venkataramani: This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.86 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune. The brief facts are that the Central Excise officers visited the premises of the appellants in Pune on 27.11.85 for verifying their accounts. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of office machines, apparatus and computers falling under 33D & 33DD respectively of the Central Excise Tariff. The officers found that the appellants were billing for certain charges in the nature of installation and commissioning which, to the department, appeared to be far in excess of the services provided on that account. It was also found that certain essential peripherals and software items forming a part of the minimum Computer system were being cleared without payment of duty. The department was also of the view that additional amounts of duty had been evaded by means of certain basis/compulsory software items and the essential peripherals forming a part of the minimum Computer System being cleared by the appellants without payment of duty on the ground that these are bought out items and not manufactured by them. After further investigation, a show cause notice was issued on 31.12.82 to the appellants in as much as they failed to include the value of installation and commissioning charges in the price declared and they have also not included the value of certain basic software and other essential peripherals in their declaration to the department. The Collector, on hearing the appellants and considering their reply, decided the case by the impugned order. The Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 94,55,215,50 for the period from 1.1.1981 to 31.12.1985 invoking the longer period under Section 11A of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. This demand was worked out on the amount of duty on account of installation and commissioning charges and on account of basic software.

2. Addressing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, Shri Ramasubramanyam, Id. Counsel, submitted that the demand in this case is for the period 1.1.81 to 31.12.85 and it is time barred being beyond six months. The Id. Counsel submitted that the appellants have fully disclosed all particular about their activity to the department. He referred to the letter dated 28.5.82 of the Superintendent addressed to the appellants wherein there is a reference to the collecting of installation charges by the appellant and the Superintendent noted this was not included in the price list and have called for particulars in this regard. This letter of the Superintendent has also been replied to by the appellants on 26.3.83 wherein they have stated that installation charges do not form part of selling price for computer system and that they have not included in the price list. The Id. Counsel urged that they have been showing the amounts of installation charges in their invoices. Thus, when there is disclosure of the collection of instllation and commissioning charges by the appellants and explanation as to why it was not included in the price list, the longer period cannot be invoked for demanding duty from them. The fact that there has been correspondence regarding these chargeds with the appellants is also evidence in the narration of the Collector's order. The Id. Counsel in this context relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the' case of Collector of Central Excise vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments - 1989 (40) ELT 276 (S.C):Lakshmi Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise- 1989 (44) ELT 353 (Tribunal); Mahabir Jute Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise- 1988 (35) ELT 119 (Tribunal); and Aroma Apparels Vs. Collector of Central Excise-1986 (25) ELT 90 (Tribunal). The Id Counsel also argued that there is a factual error in the order of the Collector. He referred to ground 53 of their grounds of appeal. The show cause notice, inter alia, referred to essential peripherals. Non-essential peripherals were not the subject-matter of adjudication.