Duty-paid goods cannot be confiscated for mere non-delivery of invoices to the driver; technical lapse alone is insufficient.

Duty-paid goods were not liable to confiscation where the only lapse was that the invoices were not handed over to the driver. The record showed that duty had already been paid and duly debited, and invoices had been raised for the goods. That omission was treated as a technical and procedural defect, not a substantive breach warranting confiscation. As a result, the confiscation could not be sustained and the consequential penalties and related consequences also fell.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty-paid goods were liable to confiscation and consequent penalty merely because the invoices were not handed over to the driver, when the duty had been paid and the debit entries were duly recorded.

Analysis: The goods were found to be duty paid, and the record showed that the duty had been debited and the invoices had been raised for the goods. The lapse was confined to non-delivery of the invoices to the transporter, which was treated as a technical and procedural omission. In such circumstances, confiscation of the goods could not be justified solely on that ground, and the resulting penalties and related consequences could not stand.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were not sustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---