Unreliable panchnama cannot support duty demand or vehicle confiscation where the issue was not properly adjudicated.

Duty could not be confirmed on alleged biscuit shortages or excess stock where the stock verification record and panchnama were found wholly unreliable; a defective panchnama could not be cured by the driver's statement, so no safe basis remained for sustaining the demand. Confiscation of the vehicle also could not be examined in the appeal because that liability had not been adjudicated below, the appeal did not properly cover that issue, and the assessee company was not the vehicle owner. The adjudication order was therefore left undisturbed and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty could be confirmed on biscuits allegedly found short or in excess on the basis of a panchnama found to be unreliable; (ii) Whether confiscation of the vehicle could be directed in the present appeal when that aspect was not adjudicated and the appellant was not the vehicle owner.

Issue (i): Whether duty could be confirmed on biscuits allegedly found short or in excess on the basis of a panchnama found to be unreliable.

Analysis: The stock verification record was found to be totally unreliable. A defective panchnama could not be cured by the driver's statement, and no safe foundation remained for confirming duty on the alleged shortages or excess stock.

Conclusion: Duty could not be sustained on the basis of the unreliable panchnama, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the vehicle could be directed in the present appeal when that aspect was not adjudicated and the appellant was not the vehicle owner.

Analysis: The notice for confiscation had been issued against the concerned individual, but the adjudicating authority had not dealt with that liability. The appeal before the Tribunal did not cover that aspect, and the assessee company, not being the vehicle owner, could not be made to answer that question in this appeal.

Conclusion: The confiscation issue could not be entertained in the present appeal.

Final Conclusion: No interference was called for with the adjudication order, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate challenge cannot sustain duty demand or ancillary confiscation when the foundational stock verification is unreliable and the separate confiscation issue is not properly covered by the appeal.

---