TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh the appeal petition and the connected papers. 4. As per the facts and finding of the Order-in-Original, it is noticed that the appellants were traders in paper based laminated decorative boards and purchased goods from Wood Polymer Ltd. duly supported by GP I showing rate of duty as NIL. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that they were not privy to the assessment dispute, if any, between the department and the manufacturer. They have received the goods duly supported by the Central Excise gate pass. They have not dealt with the goods knowing that they were dutiable goods and duty has not been paid by the manufacturer. The confiscation of the goods from them and imposition of penalty are not warranted. They have also claimed that the order passed against them was ex parte. 5. It is noticed that there has been long pending dispute between the manufacturer Wood Polymer Ltd. and the department and it was settled by order-in-original demanding duty and penal action on the manufacturer. As regards this appellant, who is a trader, we find that no penal action is warranted. As the non-duty pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; 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 confiscability of the goods received by the appellants from Wood Polymer Ltd., and record my s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Excise gate passes, he cannot be held guilty of any contravention of Central Excise provisions. As such, I am of the view that confiscation of the goods found at appellant's premises is not war ranted, the same is accordingly set aside. &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; Sd/- Sd!-  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; 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 to be upheld but redemption fine reduced to Rs. 10,000/- as held by the learned Member (Technical) or the confiscation has to be set aside in to....