2015 (11) TMI 1505 - AT - Customs

Claim of exemption from CVD - import of Red Fine Standard Grade Murate of Potash (MOP) - whether the appellant are eligible to the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - Held that - We do not find that the benefit of excise Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 has been denied to the appellant, recording any observation that the appellant are not eligible to the benefit of both the Notifications simultaneously - it is clear that denial of benefit to the said exemption Notification rests only on the issue of lack of evidence to establish that the condition of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 has not been satisfied. Vehemently challenging the same, the ld.Advocate for the appellant submits that the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) observation is de hors of the conditions of the said Notification, hence, untenable in law. However, rebutting the said finding of fact, claimed that the entire quantity of imported MOP was meant and in fact had been used in the manufacture of fertilizers; in support, the appellant have produced a certificate issued by their statutory auditors. Further, it is their contention that the benefit of concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty @ 5% was allowed only on the condition that the imported MOP had been used in the manufacture of fertilizers, therefore, it cannot be said that the imported MOP were not used in the manufacture of fertilizers, but sold in the market. Imported MOP had been used in the manufacture of fertilizers. In any case, it is needless to mention that at any point of time, if the department is able to unearth facts or bring evidences that would lead to an inference that the imported MOP had not been used in the manufacture of fertilizers, on that ground alone the benefit of exemption Notification could be denied alleging suppression or mis-declaration of facts. However, at this stage since the evidence produced by the appellant, has not been rebutted by the revenue by producing contradictory evidences, hence, in our opinion, it is safe to conclude that they have complied with the condition of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012; accordingly, eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal denying benefit of Notifications, eligibility for concessional duty, requirement of end-use certificate, and compliance with Notification conditions.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against an Order-in-Appeal that denied the benefit of Notifications to the appellant. The appellant imported Murate of Potash (MOP) for use in manufacturing fertilizers, claiming concessional duty under Notification No.12/2012-CUS and Notification No.12/2012-CE. Customs authorities directed payment of CVD at 1% and denied the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE, leading to the appeals. The appellant contended that they met the conditions for both notifications and produced evidence supporting their claim. The issue primarily revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.

The appellant argued that they used the imported MOP in manufacturing fertilizers, thus meeting the conditions for concessional duty. They highlighted the compatibility of Notifications, the interpretation of Customs Act, and relevant circulars and public notices supporting their position. The appellant emphasized that they procured an end-use certificate and challenged the assessment on all Bills of Entry, indicating their disagreement with the denial of benefits. They cited relevant tribunal judgments supporting their stance.

On the contrary, the Revenue argued that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of using MOP solely for fertilizer manufacturing, as required by the Notifications. They contended that an end-use certificate became crucial due to a High Court directive. The key question was whether the appellant satisfied the conditions of Notification No.12/2012-CE.

The Tribunal analyzed the case, focusing on the appellant's compliance with the Notification conditions. It noted that the denial of benefits was solely due to lack of evidence regarding MOP usage in fertilizer production. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence, including a certificate from statutory auditors, convincing. As the Revenue did not rebut this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant met the Notification conditions and was eligible for the benefit. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with any consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the appellant's compliance with Notification conditions, particularly the use of imported MOP in fertilizer manufacturing. The evidence provided by the appellant was deemed sufficient to establish eligibility for the Notification benefits, leading to the favorable outcome of the appeals.