Tribunal remands appeals for fresh adjudication with partial pre-deposit requirement. Appellants must comply.

The Tribunal remanded the appeals for fresh adjudication, directing the appellants to make a partial pre-deposit to secure government revenue. The adjudicating Commissioner was instructed to pass fresh orders after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Compliance with the pre-deposit direction was required, or else the appeals would be dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Wrong availment of credit without receiving goods.
3. Non-allowance of cross-examination and imposition of penalties on high sea sales.
4. Fraudulent use of customs duty exemption by diverting imported goods.
5. Delay in passing adjudication orders.
6. Requirement of pre-deposit for remand.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants argued that they were not granted a fresh hearing date after requesting an adjournment, despite the adjudicating authority taking nine months to pass the order. This was claimed to be a violation of natural justice. The appellants contended that they could have argued that end-use certificates were valid and that demands under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, were unsustainable. They offered to pre-deposit additional amounts but sought remand for fresh adjudication.

2. Wrong Availment of Credit Without Receiving Goods:
One appellant contended that the Central Excise duty demand was confirmed without listing the wrong availment of credit in the relevant statutory RG-23 register. The order was passed nine months after the hearing, contrary to a Bombay High Court decision stipulating a time limit for passing orders. However, it was noted that this decision pertained to the Tribunal, not adjudicating authorities under Customs and Excise statutes.

3. Non-Allowance of Cross-Examination and Imposition of Penalties on High Sea Sales:
Some appellants adopted the arguments of others and added that the adjudicating Commissioner did not allow cross-examination. Penalties were imposed on high sea sales, which were neither importers nor recipients of the impugned goods.

4. Fraudulent Use of Customs Duty Exemption by Diverting Imported Goods:
The department argued that the goods were imported at a concessional rate under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001, but were diverted and sold without reaching the manufacturing units. The end-use certificates were based on fabricated records. Investigations revealed that the goods did not reach the claimed destinations, and the importers fabricated records in connivance with the melting units. The adjudicating authority concluded that there were violations under both the Customs Act, 1962, and the Central Excise Act, 1944.

5. Delay in Passing Adjudication Orders:
The department justified the delay in passing the adjudication orders, stating that the appellants themselves were responsible for the delay. The adjudicating Commissioner granted hearings on multiple dates, but the appellants attempted to malign the Commissioner to delay the process.

6. Requirement of Pre-Deposit for Remand:
The Tribunal noted that the case involved fraudulent transactions leading to loss of customs duty and wrong availment of CENVAT credit. Even if the case required remand, there was justification for pre-deposit to secure government revenue. The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit 25% of the customs or excise duty demands (less amounts already paid) within eight weeks. Subject to compliance, the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amounts, including penalties, would be waived, and the appeals would be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal decided to remand the appeals for fresh adjudication, directing the appellants to make a partial pre-deposit to secure government revenue. The adjudicating Commissioner was instructed to pass fresh orders after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction would result in dismissal of the appeals.

---