Interim reward claims cannot be rejected when informer's information materially triggers investigation and seizure under the policy.

An interim reward claim under the reward policy could not be rejected on the grounds that the informer's identity was unproven or that the information was insignificant, where the written material supplied had been found in a sealed cover, matched the pleadings, and materially assisted further investigation and seizure in a duty evasion matter. The policy treated reward as an ex gratia payment within administrative discretion, but that discretion had to be exercised on relevant and sustainable grounds. On the facts recorded, the rejection of the claim was unsustainable in law, and the claim required reconsideration in accordance with the policy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to grant interim reward under the reward policy was sustainable when the informer had supplied information that materially contributed to the investigation and seizure.

Analysis: The reward policy treated reward as an ex gratia payment to be granted in the discretion of the competent authority, and in Central Excise duty evasion cases normally no advance or interim reward was payable unless the statutory policy conditions were met. The record showed that the written information supplied by the petitioner was found in the sealed cover and corresponded with the pleadings, undermining the objection that the informer's identity was unestablished. The contemporaneous material, including the authorities' own replies, showed that the information was developed into further investigation and that it had the character of a meaningful lead rather than a mere routine input. In these circumstances, the rejection of the claim on the grounds of identity and insufficiency of information could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The refusal of interim reward was held to be unsustainable in law, and the petitioner was entitled to reconsideration of the claim in accordance with the policy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where supplied information materially assists and triggers investigation in a duty evasion case, rejection of an interim reward claim on untenable grounds of identity or insignificance cannot stand, even though the grant of reward remains subject to administrative discretion under the policy.

---