Manufacturing activity finding upheld where missing books, supplier details and contracts made the inference of concealment plausible.

The Tribunal's finding that the appellant had engaged in manufacturing activity was upheld because the surrounding facts supported a plausible inference of concealment. The absence of machinery or raw material at survey did not displace the Revenue's case, as the appellant failed to produce original books, full supplier details, and supply contracts, while the delayed FIR further hindered verification of the goods' source and nature. On those facts, the conclusion that material facts within the appellant's knowledge had been withheld was not perverse, and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the appellant had engaged in manufacturing activity was perverse and liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The appellant's plea rested on the absence of machinery or raw material at the time of survey and on an assertion that the Revenue had not discharged the burden of proving manufacture. The Tribunal's conclusion was supported by the admitted supply of branded goods, non-production of original books of account, failure to furnish full particulars of alleged suppliers, absence of the supply contracts, and the delayed FIR, all of which prevented effective verification of the source and nature of the goods. On those facts, the inference that material facts within the appellant's knowledge had been concealed was held to be a plausible one.

Conclusion: The finding of the Tribunal was not perverse and no interference was warranted; the appeal failed.

---