2009 (2) TMI 609 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Alleged misuse of imported Palm Oil of Industrial Grade for manufacturing vanaspati instead of soap as per concession under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., breach of terms of notification, demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,71,73,426/-, pre-deposit during appeal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Misuse of imported Palm Oil
The Appellant argued that the imported Palm Oil of Industrial Grade was used only for manufacturing soaps as per the concession granted under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., and not diverted for any other purpose. The Revenue alleged diversion for manufacturing vanaspati without sufficient evidence. The Appellant contended that any liability would arise under the Central Excise Act, 1944, not the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant also highlighted the discharge of a demanded amount of Rs. 30,55,635/-, questioning the sustainability of the current duty demand of Rs. 1,71,73,426/- due to valid reasons of the imported palm oil's use for soap manufacturing. The request for dispensing pre-deposit during the appeal was made.

Issue 2: Evidence against the Appellant
The Joint CDR argued that the Appellant failed to satisfy the authority below when clear evidence of misuse of imported Palm Oil was presented. The inadequate soap manufacturing facility of the Appellant was questioned, with evidence suggesting no soap production and incapability of the tanker capacity to support storage. The mode of transport used did not support the movement of goods, leading to the demand for pre-deposit of the entire amount raised by the adjudication order.

Judgment:
After hearing both sides and examining the evidence, it was found that the imported industrial grade Palm Oil was not used for soap manufacturing as per the concession conditions. The Revenue's case was supported by various evidence and circumstances, including discrepancies in purchase records, sales tax returns, and infrastructure inadequacies for soap production. Considering the material facts and scrutiny done by the Revenue, a pre-deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- was directed to be made by the Appellant within a specified timeline. Failure to comply would allow Revenue to realize its dues. A separate direction was given for another appellant, requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-. These orders were made without evidence of financial hardship presented by the appellants.