Gas Cylinders Rules licence dispute failed where technical defence was not examined; confiscation and penalty were set aside on remand.

Import licence requirements under the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016 depended on whether the gas to be filled in the empty cans was "compressed gas" within the Rules; on the material discussed, that technical question was not properly examined, and the findings treating the cans as prohibited were unsupported. Because the lower authorities did not deal with the appellant's technical defence, the adjudication was regarded as non-speaking and the orders of absolute confiscation and penalty could not be sustained. The impugned orders were therefore set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant and considering its submissions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported empty cans were covered by the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016 so as to require a licence and justify confiscation and penalty, and whether the adjudication orders could be sustained when the technical defence was not examined.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the gas intended to be filled in the cans was "compressed gas" within the meaning of the Rules, because only then would Rule 29(1) require a licence. The appellant had raised technical contentions to show that R134a was outside the relevant definition, but those submissions were not dealt with by the lower authorities. The findings below were therefore treated as non-speaking and unsupported by record. The conclusion that the cans were of a prohibited nature was also not established on the material before the authority. In these circumstances, the order of absolute confiscation and the consequential penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant and considering its submissions.

---