1993 (8) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Seizure and confiscation of Urea for failure to prove duty payment.
- Appellants' absence during the hearing.
- Applicability of duty payment presumption on goods purchased from the open market.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves five appeals against four impugned Orders-in-Appeal, consolidated due to a common question. The seized Urea was ordered to be confiscated as duty payment proof was lacking.

2. The appellants, manufacturers of plywood, had the Urea seized for resin manufacturing. The absence of appellants during the hearing led to a decision on merits in their absence.

3. The learned JDR highlighted that the seized Urea was of technical grade, purchased from the open market for industrial use. Despite this, the demand was upheld for failure to prove duty payment, contrary to established law.

4. Reference was made to the Calcutta High Court's decision emphasizing the impossibility for purchasers to verify duty payment on goods from the market. The judgment was supported by a similar ruling from the Bombay High Court.

5. The Tribunal found the appellants used the Urea for industrial purposes, purchased from the open market. The authorities' decision contradicted established legal principles. Citing the Calcutta and Bombay High Court decisions, the impugned Orders were set aside, allowing all appeals with consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies the presumption of duty payment on goods purchased from the open market for industrial use, aligning with previous High Court decisions. The Tribunal emphasized the burden on purchasers to prove duty payment is unreasonable, providing relief to the appellants based on established legal principles.