2007 (10) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Trader's Goods Confiscated & Fined, Leniency Granted on Redemption Fine

The appeal involved confiscation and redemption fine of goods seized from the appellant, a trader in paper-based laminated decorative boards. The goods ... Appellant, co-noticee, receiver of goods – seizure, confiscation & penalty - as the goods are being received by him under proper Central Excise gate passes, he cannot be held guilty of any contravention of Central Excise provisions - no evidence of involvement of appellant with manufacturer - there may be a dispute regarding classification between the manufacturers & dept. but buyer, trader can’t be held accused even if appellant had knowledge that dept. has sought different classification Issues involved:- Confiscation and redemption fine of seized goods- Imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944- Dispute regarding classification of goods between manufacturer and Central Excise authoritiesAnalysis:Issue 1: Confiscation and redemption fine of seized goodsThe appeal involved the confiscation and redemption fine of goods seized from the premises of the appellant, a trader in paper-based laminated decorative boards. The order-in-original demanded duty and penal action on the manufacturer, Wood Polymer Ltd., but no penal action was deemed warranted against the appellant. The goods were confiscated due to being non-duty paid, but leniency was granted by reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 1.3 lakhs to Rs. 10,000. The penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed on the appellant was set aside. The final order set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944The penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed on the appellant under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was set aside. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that they were not aware of any assessment dispute between the department and the manufacturer, as they received the goods supported by Central Excise gate pass showing NIL duty rate. The tribunal found that no penal action was warranted against the appellant, who was a trader in this case.Issue 3: Dispute regarding classification of goods between manufacturer and Central Excise authoritiesThere was a dispute regarding the classification of goods between the manufacturer, Wood Polymer Ltd., and the Central Excise authorities. The manufacturer claimed classification under one sub-heading, while the revenue insisted on another. However, the tribunal held that the dispute between the manufacturer and the Central Excise authorities could not be the basis for confiscating the goods at the hands of the purchaser. The appellant, as a receiver of the goods under valid duty-paying documents, was not required to assess the correct classification or duty payment. The goods were not held liable for confiscation, and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty was set aside.The judgment highlighted the importance of valid duty-paying documents and the recipient's role in assessing the correct classification of goods. It also differentiated the responsibilities of the manufacturer and the purchaser in cases of disputes regarding classification. The decision ultimately favored the appellant, setting aside the penalties and allowing the appeal based on the majority order.