Cenvat credit and clandestine removal findings sustained where concurrent evidence showed no perversity or shown prejudice.

Concurrent findings sustaining wrongful availment of Cenvat credit and clandestine removal were based on investigation material, stock verification, transport records, panchanama, statements and production comparisons, and the High Court treated them as findings of fact not open to reappreciation in further appeal absent perversity or legal error. The court also held that a complaint of denial of cross-examination does not vitiate the findings unless actual prejudice is independently shown; on the record, the cumulative evidence was sufficient and no demonstrable prejudice was established. The challenge to the duty demand therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's findings sustaining wrongful availment of Cenvat credit and clandestine removal were perverse or gave rise to a substantial question of law; (ii) Whether denial of cross-examination and reliance on transport and stock-related material vitiated the findings for want of prejudice.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal's findings sustaining wrongful availment of Cenvat credit and clandestine removal were perverse or gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The allegation was that credit had been availed on inputs not physically received or used in the factory and that finished goods were cleared without payment of duty. The Tribunal had considered the investigation, show-cause notice, stock verification, statements of persons connected with transport and business, panchanama, and the comparison between claimed inputs and finished production. The High Court held that these were concurrent findings of fact based on material on record and that the appeal sought only reappreciation of evidence, which was impermissible in further appeal absent perversity or a legal error.

Conclusion: The findings were not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose. The conclusion was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination and reliance on transport and stock-related material vitiated the findings for want of prejudice.

Analysis: The Court noted that the Revenue's case rested not on isolated statements alone but on a cumulative body of material, including transport records, panchanama, stock discrepancies, and statements of persons associated with the assessee and carriers. It further held that even where breach of natural justice is alleged, prejudice must be independently shown. On the record, no demonstrable prejudice was established, and the material sufficiently supported the conclusion that some goods were never transported to the factory.

Conclusion: The objection based on denial of cross-examination failed, and the findings were sustained. The conclusion was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent factual findings were upheld, and the challenge to the duty demand failed in full. The appeal was not entertained on merits and stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact based on cumulative evidence will not be interfered with in further appeal unless perversity, legal error, or demonstrated prejudice from procedural breach is shown.

---