2019 (9) TMI 1163 - AT - Customs

Import of Urea by declaring agriculture grade - Diversion of such Urea to industrial user - Benefit of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 withdrawn - fulfillment of the condition of use of Urea for agriculture purpose - HELD THAT - The issue of cross examination in the case of Vijay Chandrakant Mulchandani will have bearing on the overall case as the department has relied upon the statements in case of Vijay Chandrakant Mulchandani also. Moreover, in case of other parties, the Ld. Counsels raised issue that the cross examinations of the witnesses were not allowed by the adjudicating authority. The cross examination of witnesses is primary requirement for fair adjudication as per the statutory provision of Section 9D of Central Excise Act and pari-materia provision in the Customs Act. The entire matter needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority after allowing the cross examination of various witnesses as requested by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Import of Urea declared for agriculture use but diverted to industrial user.
2. Admissibility of duty exemption on Urea under Notification No. 12/2012-CE.
3. Cross-examination of witnesses and fair adjudication.
4. Remand of the matter by the Hon'ble High Court.

Issue 1: Import of Urea declared for agriculture use but diverted to industrial user
The case involved M/s Indian Potash Ltd importing Urea declared for agriculture use but allegedly diverted to industrial users. The Central Excise duty on fertilizer was levied at 1% ad-valorem w.e.f. 01.03.2011. The department claimed that the Urea imported by M/s Indian Potash Ltd, declared as agriculture grade, was diverted to industrial users, making them ineligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE. Detailed investigation, including statements of involved parties, was conducted to support this claim.

Issue 2: Admissibility of duty exemption on Urea under Notification No. 12/2012-CE
The legal argument put forth by the appellant's counsel was that there was no fault on the part of M/s Indian Potash Ltd as they sold the goods to authorized distributors for agricultural use. The counsel contended that the notification did not specify an actual user condition, and since the Urea was intended for fertilizer use and supplied to authorized distributors, the duty exemption should apply. The department, however, argued that the Urea was diverted to industrial users, rendering the exemption inapplicable.

Issue 3: Cross-examination of witnesses and fair adjudication
The matter of cross-examination of witnesses emerged as a crucial aspect of fair adjudication. The High Court remanded the case involving one party due to the lack of cross-examination of witnesses. The appellant's counsels raised concerns about the denial of cross-examination in various cases, leading to a challenge of the legality of orders based on such statements. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of cross-examination for fair adjudication, citing statutory provisions under the Central Excise Act and Customs Act.

Issue 4: Remand of the matter by the Hon'ble High Court
The Tribunal considered the remand of the matter by the High Court concerning the cross-examination of witnesses. It was noted that the issue of cross-examination in one party's case could impact the overall case, as statements from these witnesses were relied upon by the department in multiple cases. The Tribunal decided that the entire matter needed reconsideration by the adjudicating authority after allowing cross-examination of witnesses, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication order following the principles of natural justice, particularly emphasizing the importance of cross-examination in ensuring fair adjudication.