Seizure cannot rest on unsupported assumptions when manufacturing particulars are not established on the affidavit record.

A seizure of tins cannot be sustained where the department fails to establish, on the record and in the affidavits, the factual basis for treating the goods as covered by the alleged manufacturing particulars. The Tribunal rejected reliance on an unsupported inference from a batch number and held that fresh reports not referred to in the affidavits could not be used to fill evidentiary gaps. On that basis, the seizures of 55 tins and 50 tins lacking the stated month and year of manufacture were quashed, while penalty proceedings were permitted to continue for the remaining seizures that did specify those particulars.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure of the tins was liable to be quashed where the seizure receipts did not mention the month and year of manufacture in respect of some of the seized tins; (ii) whether the authorities could proceed with penalty proceedings in respect of the remaining seizures.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure of the tins was liable to be quashed where the seizure receipts did not mention the month and year of manufacture in respect of some of the seized tins.

Analysis: The seizure was justified only if the goods seized were shown to fall outside the permit coverage or to bear the relevant manufacturing details relied upon by the department. The material before the Tribunal did not establish that all the seized tins bore February, 1990 as the month and year of manufacture. In respect of two seizure receipts, the month and year of manufacture were not mentioned at all, and the department's attempt to treat batch number 199 as necessarily signifying February, 1990 was not accepted in the absence of supporting averments in the affidavits. Fresh reports not referred to in the affidavits could not be used to supplement the department's case.

Conclusion: The seizure of the 55 tins from M/s. Pradip Traders and the 50 tins from M/s. Bimal Stores was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the authorities could proceed with penalty proceedings in respect of the remaining seizures.

Analysis: As the seizure receipts relating to the remaining tins specifically mentioned the month and year of manufacture, the Tribunal accepted that the department was at liberty to continue the penalty proceedings in relation to those seizures. The security furnished earlier was directed to abide the result of those proceedings.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings in respect of the remaining two seizures were permitted to continue.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only in part, with quashing of the two seizures lacking the stated manufacturing particulars, while the balance of the departmental action was left to be completed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure cannot be sustained on assumptions or materials outside the affidavits when the record does not establish the factual basis for treating the goods as falling within the alleged prohibited category, and fresh material cannot be used to fill such gaps in the department's case.

---