Doubtful confession cannot sustain penalty, but confiscation of unclaimed offending goods may still stand independently.

A doubtful confession could not safely sustain penal liability where it was recorded late at night, promptly retracted before the Magistrate, and the request to cross-examine the seizure witness was rejected without reasons; the penalty was therefore set aside. However, confiscation of the unclaimed offending goods was upheld because no sufficient basis was shown to disturb that order, and the goods had not been claimed by the appellant. The commentary thus distinguishes between evidentiary infirmity affecting penalty and independent confiscation of unclaimed goods.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant's confession was voluntary and could sustain the penalty; (ii) whether confiscation of the unclaimed offending goods was liable to be upheld.

Issue (i): whether the appellant's confession was voluntary and could sustain the penalty

Analysis: The statement was recorded late at night, the appellant had retracted the confession before the Magistrate within a week, the request for cross-examination of the seizure witness had been rejected without reasons, and the subsequent evidence showed that criminal prosecution had not been sanctioned. These circumstances created doubt about the voluntariness of the confession, and the confession could not safely form the sole basis for adverse findings.

Conclusion: The confession was not treated as reliable, and the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether confiscation of the unclaimed offending goods was liable to be upheld

Analysis: The goods were not claimed by the appellant, and no sufficient basis was shown to disturb the confiscation order in respect of those goods.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the unclaimed offending goods was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the penalty issue, but the confiscation of the unclaimed goods remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the voluntary nature of a confession is doubtful and the surrounding circumstances support retraction and evidentiary infirmity, the confession cannot safely sustain penal liability, though confiscation of unclaimed goods may still stand on its own footing.

---