Duty-paid evidence for seized biris requires reliable excise documents; unauthenticated registers and sale bills were held insufficient.

Seized biris were not accepted as duty paid because the assessee failed to produce the prescribed gate pass or equivalent excise document. An unauthenticated duty paid register and a sale bill were held insufficient to prove prior payment of duty, and the explanation that biris would deteriorate over time did not establish duty-paid clearance. The claim of duty payment therefore failed, and confiscation and penalty were sustained in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized biris could be treated as duty paid on the basis of an unauthenticated duty paid register and a sale bill in the absence of the prescribed gate pass or equivalent excise document.

Analysis: The claim of prior duty payment was rejected because the goods allegedly cleared over several months were not supported by reliable excise documents. The duty paid register was not authenticated by the proper officer, and therefore could not be safely relied upon. A sale bill, by itself, was not treated as a substitute for the prescribed gate pass document which alone could evidence payment of duty. The explanation that biris would deteriorate over time did not establish that the seized goods had in fact been duty paid.

Conclusion: The claim of duty payment failed, and the confiscation and penalty were sustained in favour of the Revenue.

---