Concurrent factual findings on stock shortage and evidence appreciation left no substantial question of law for interference.

Concurrent factual findings on shortage and stock explanation were based on the RG-1 register, books and supporting charts, which satisfactorily explained a substantial part of the alleged shortage of G.M. Balls. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the explanation to that extent and restricted the adverse finding to the unsubstantiated balance quantity, and the Tribunal affirmed that appreciation of evidence. As the revenue did not show that the accepted material was fabricated, false or perverse, no substantial question of law arose and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order deleting part of the confiscation, duty and penalty and whether any substantial question of law arose from the factual findings on shortage and explanation of stock.

Analysis: The material on record, including the RG-1 register and the charts based on books and supporting evidence, showed that the assessee satisfactorily explained a substantial part of the alleged shortage of G.M. Balls. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the explanation to that extent and confined the adverse finding only to the unsubstantiated balance quantity. The Tribunal affirmed that factual appreciation. As the revenue did not establish that the evidence accepted by the appellate authorities was fabricated or false, the concurrent findings were based on evidence and did not suffer from perversity.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal's order was upheld and the revenue's challenge failed.

---