2006 (1) TMI 444 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-appeal upholding penalty, demand, and partially allowing respondent's appeal. Revenue's appeal on setting aside duty demand and penalty. Import of Crude Palm Oil for manufacturing Vanaspati & Refined Oil. Short delivery of goods and duty imposition.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a case where the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty, demand, and partially allowed the respondent's appeal. The Revenue appealed against the part of the order-in-appeal that set aside the duty demand of approximately Rs. 1,16,090 and the imposed penalty. The case revolved around the import of Crude Palm Oil and degummed soyabean oil under a concessional rate of duty for manufacturing Vanaspati & Refined Oil. The authorities discovered that a portion of the imported Crude Palm Oil was not utilized for the intended purpose. A Show Cause notice was issued to the respondent for duty recovery and penalty imposition. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,01,228 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000, along with interest on the short-paid amount. On appeal, the appellate authority upheld a demand of Rs. 85,138 and interest, while allowing the appeal in part. The Revenue contested the setting aside of a duty demand of Rs. 1,16,090 and the penalty. The Tribunal examined the arguments and evidence presented by both sides.

The Revenue contended that the demand of Rs. 1,16,090 was based on a quantity of 26.496 MT, claimed by the respondent as short-landed, which the Revenue disputed. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's argument lacked supporting evidence. The Show Cause Notice highlighted that goods imported for manufacturing Vanaspati were not used for the intended purpose, leading to the duty demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that a quantity of 26.496 MT was short-delivered to the appellants at the port of import, raising doubts about whether the goods had actually landed in the country. The Commissioner concluded that these goods could not be treated as imported goods since delivery was not given to the appellants.

The Tribunal noted that when the Show Cause Notice itself admitted the short delivery of 26.496 MT to the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) findings were deemed correct. It was reasoned that if the respondent had not received the imported goods, they could not be held accountable for not utilizing them for the intended purpose. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, as the duty demand was not justified in the absence of goods being received by the respondent for consumption in the intended manner.