Duty-paying documents failed to match actual transport particulars, so excise demand, confiscation and penalty were upheld.

Goods intercepted from a tempo were not shown to be covered by the duty-paying documents produced by the appellant, because the documents recorded an earlier removal time and a different vehicle number, while the driver's statement indicated loading in that tempo on the interception date. On that factual basis, the tribunal held that the plea of a mere transfer from a broken-down truck was not substantiated. The excise demand, confiscation and penalty were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods recovered from the tempo were covered by the duty-paying documents produced by the appellant.

Issue (i): Whether the goods recovered from the tempo were covered by the duty-paying documents produced by the appellant.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted on 4-11-1993, whereas the GP-I and invoice described removal on 3-11-1993 at 1740 hrs. The vehicle number mentioned in the documents was different from the tempo from which the goods were recovered. The driver's statement also indicated that the goods were loaded in the tempo on 4-11-1993 from the factory, which did not support the plea that the goods were merely transferred from a broken-down truck.

Conclusion: The goods were not established to be covered by the duty-paying documents, and the demand, confiscation and penalty were upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed as the appellant could not rebut the finding that the seized goods were transported inconsistently with the documents produced, warranting confirmation of the excise demand and allied consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the transport particulars and timing in duty-paying documents do not match the actual interception and the contemporaneous statement supports a different loading event, the documents do not protect the goods from excise consequences.

---