Proof of thickness of seized M.S. flats failed, so confiscation and duty demand could not be sustained.

The seized M.S. flats were not proved, on the available evidence, to be flats not exceeding 5 mm thickness. Random seizure measurements were unsupported by a worksheet or representative sampling data, while purchase vouchers and challans showed procurement of flats above 5 mm; the applicable 0.5 mm Indian Standard tolerance also militated against the revenue's case. Confiscation and duty demand therefore failed, and the lower appellate authority's order in favour of the respondent was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized M.S. Flats were proved to be flats not exceeding 5 mm thickness so as to attract confiscation and duty demand as non-duty-paid goods.

Analysis: The evidentiary basis for the revenue's case rested on random measurements taken at the time of seizure and on the statement of the respondent's works manager. The measurements were not supported by a worksheet showing the size of the sample, the number of pieces measured, or their individual thicknesses, and the record did not establish that the samples were representative of the entire lot. The respondent had also produced purchase vouchers and challans showing procurement of M.S. Flats exceeding 5 mm from multiple suppliers. In addition, the relevant tolerance of 0.5 mm prescribed by the Indian Standard could not be ignored, and on that basis the measured pieces could not safely be treated as flats not exceeding 5 mm thickness.

Conclusion: It was not proved that the seized goods were M.S. Flats not exceeding 5 mm thickness, and the revenue's case for confiscation and duty demand failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the factual determination regarding thickness of the goods, and the order of the lower appellate authority in favour of the respondent was left undisturbed.

---