Identity of seized goods must rest on evidence, not tax-rate parity; tribunal order quashed and remitted for expert verification.

Where the identity of seized goods is disputed, the adjudicating authority must determine the commodity on evidence and, if necessary, expert opinion; parity of tax rate does not make two commodities identical. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in treating plastic dana and master batch as the same commodity without evidentiary support and in relying on tax-rate similarity alone. The Tribunal's order was unsustainable, the revision was allowed, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after proper verification of the goods' identity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating plastic dana and master batch as the same commodity without evidence and in setting aside the seizure order.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted and seized on the basis that the documents described the load as plastic dana, while physical verification suggested that a part of the consignment consisted of master batch, a different commodity used as a colourant in plastic manufacture. The Tribunal interfered on the footing that the rate of tax was the same and no evidence had been led to establish a difference in identity. The High Court held that similarity in tax rate does not make two commodities identical. The Tribunal had proceeded on a presumption that was unsupported by evidence. Where the identity of the goods was in doubt, the proper course was to obtain expert opinion to ascertain the true nature of the goods.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was unsustainable. The revision was allowed, the Tribunal's order was quashed, and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for fresh decision after verification of the goods' identity through expert opinion.

Final Conclusion: A finding on the identity of seized goods must rest on evidence and, where necessary, expert examination, not on assumptions drawn from the tax rate alone.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the nature of seized goods is disputed, the adjudicating authority must determine their identity on evidence, and if required by expert opinion, because parity of tax rate does not establish that two commodities are the same.

---