9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember (J), Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Third Member on Reference by: Shri S.S. Kang, Vice-President [ Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - 1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Laminate Sales Corporation against the order No. 12/MP/2001, dated 10-5-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat II. 2. The appellant was one of the co-noticees and in the said order the goods valued at Rs. 3,48,657.43 seized from the premises of the appellant was confiscated and given an option to redeem the same on payment of fine on Rs.1.30 lakhs. The appellant was also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under R.209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Heard Id. DR for the department. None appeared for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/-. (b) Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellant is set aside. Sd!- (M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical) 6. [Order per: Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - I have gone through the order proposed by my id. Brother, Member (Technical) who has upheld the conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able on said goods was 35% ad valorem as BED and 5% BED as SED. Hence, the penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is imposable upon them." 9. As is clear from the above paragraph, the goods stands confiscated on the ground that the same should have been cleared by the manufacturer under Chapter 39 on payment of higher rate of duty instead of under Chapter 48 on payment of lower rate of duty. The said dispute between the manufacturer and their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, cannot be made the basis for confiscating the goods at the hands of the purchaser. The purchaser is not required to assess the correct classification of the goods procured by him and to satisfy himself about the correct payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aiyan) Member (Technical) (Archna Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) 11 . [Order per: S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - None appeared on behalf of the appellants. Heard the learned SDR. The following difference of opinion is referred to the Third Member "Whether the confiscation of the goods found at the appellant's premises, who is a trader is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the manufacturer. There is no evidence on record to show that the present appellant connived with the manufacturer in the evasion of duty. It is also well-settled law that the classification issue cannot be re-opened at the recipient end. As the present appellant received the goods under the valid GPIs and being the recipient of the goods is not required to assess correct classification of goods, therefore, I agree with the view taken by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) that the goods are not liable for confiscation. Therefore, imposition of redemption fine and penalty is set aside. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court). Sd!- (S.S. Kang) Vice President FINAL ORDER In view of the majority order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
