Tribunal Overturns Order Confiscating Goods - Emphasizes Need for Actual Weighment

The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal confiscating seized goods and imposing a penalty on appellants engaged in manufacturing M.S. ingots. The Tribunal found the confiscation based on approximate weighment without actual verification unjustified, especially for runners and risers of varying sizes. Emphasizing the need for actual weighment, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them relief and overturning the decision.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing M.S. ingots, filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue department officers found excess finished goods at the factory during a visit, leading to the seizure of 4.5 M.T. of M.S. ingots and 2.6 M.T. of runners and risers. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods, released them on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 15,000, and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellants contended that no actual weighment verification was conducted and that the weighment recorded in the panchnama was approximate. They argued that the runners and risers were of various sizes, and the confiscation based on approximate weighment was not sustainable. Citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case, they emphasized that demands based on average weighment, not actual weighment, were set aside.

On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the panchnama was prepared in the presence of the authorized signatory of the appellants, who acknowledged the accuracy of the entries. They asserted that the excess goods were rightfully determined based on the recorded balance.

The Tribunal found that both M.S. ingots and runners and risers were in excess based on approximate weighment, without actual verification. Considering that the runners and risers varied in shapes and sizes, confiscation solely on an approximate basis was deemed unjustified. Referring to the appellants' cited case, the Tribunal ruled that demands and confiscations cannot be solely based on average weighment without actual verification.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellants were granted any consequential relief as per the law.

---