Manufacturer liable for differential excise duty when subsidized agricultural fertilizer diverted to industrial use despite proper marking

CESTAT NEW DELHI upheld recovery of differential Central Excise Duty against manufacturer who diverted subsidized SSP fertilizer from agricultural to industrial use. The fertilizer was clearly marked for agricultural use only but was misused by the final purchaser for manufacturing other products. The court rejected claims of sub-standard quality, noting Fertilizer Control Order 1994 requirements for proper marking. Confiscation of 33 MT SSP, redemption fine of Rs. 50,000, and penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Rule 26 were upheld. The diversion constituted excise duty evasion, with earlier sellers unable to foresee the misuse.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the imposition of differential central excise duty, penalty under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, and the diversion of goods meant for agriculture use to industrial use.

Manglam's Appeal (Excise Appeal No. 53077 of 2018):
Manglam Phosphate Limited challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the imposition of central excise duty, interest, and penalties on them. The appellant argued that they had no control over the goods once sold to IPL, and the subsequent misuse by Hindustan should not result in liability for Manglam. They contended that the duty should be recovered from the actual users of the goods, not the original manufacturer. The appellant also claimed that the demand was time-barred and penalties were wrongly imposed. The Tribunal found merit in Manglam's arguments, stating that the manufacturer's responsibility ends upon removal of the goods, and liability cannot be imposed based on the actions of subsequent buyers. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside in favor of Manglam.

Hindustan's Appeal (Excise Appeal No. 50981 of 2018):
Hindustan Phosphate Pvt Ltd. appealed against the penalty imposed under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules and the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of seized goods. Hindustan argued that as a buyer, they should not be penalized for the actions of the manufacturer or previous sellers. They also claimed that the seized goods were of sub-standard quality, justifying their industrial use. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that Hindustan alone diverted the goods meant for agriculture use to industrial purposes. The bags clearly indicated agricultural use, and Hindustan's actions led to evasion of excise duty. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the penalty and fine imposed on Hindustan.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed Manglam's appeal, setting aside the order against them, while dismissing Hindustan's appeal and upholding the penalties imposed on them. The judgment highlights the distinction between the responsibilities of manufacturers and buyers in ensuring compliance with excise duty regulations.

---