Revision review of brick kiln production estimate remanded after unexplained departure from earlier comparable findings

Revision interference was declined on the findings regarding average selling rate and the brick kiln's operational period because those conclusions rested on appreciation of evidence and were not shown to be perverse or legally untenable. However, the gross production estimate based on a 25-day round was set aside because it departed from earlier orders in the assessee's own case, where a 35-day period had been treated as reasonable, without any recorded change in the kiln's condition, capacity, or dimensions. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on that limited production issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the findings on average selling rate and the operational period of the brick kiln called for interference in revision; (ii) Whether the determination of gross production of bricks on the basis of a 25-day round was sustainable or required fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the findings on average selling rate and the operational period of the brick kiln called for interference in revision

Analysis: The findings on the average selling rate and the period of operation were based on appreciation of evidence. In revision, such findings are not ordinarily disturbed unless shown to be perverse, unsupported, or otherwise legally untenable.

Conclusion: The findings on average selling rate and operational period were upheld and no interference was made.

Issue (ii): Whether the determination of gross production of bricks on the basis of a 25-day round was sustainable or required fresh consideration

Analysis: The rate of production adopted for the year in question was inconsistent with earlier orders in the assessee's own case, where a 35-day period had been treated as reasonable for one round. No reason was recorded for departing from the earlier view despite no material change in the kiln's situation, capacity, or dimensions. The determination therefore required reconsideration with reference to the prior orders and any further material produced by the parties.

Conclusion: The finding on gross production was set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of the production issue, while the remaining findings were left undisturbed and the matter was sent back for reconsideration on that limited question.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, evidence-based findings are not interfered with unless legally infirm, but a departure from earlier comparable findings without recorded reasons cannot be sustained and may warrant remand.

---