Concurrent findings of fact in tax appeal upheld where evidence showed taxable sales, not mere job-work.

Concurrent findings that the assessee had effected taxable sales of Chhakdo rickshaws, rather than mere job-work, were upheld because they were supported by reassessment material, the dealer's response, and evidence on record. The reassessment was not vitiated as resting solely on the excise department's notice; the authority independently examined the case and considered the dealer's explanation. On facts, the assessee failed to produce bills or other documentary proof that engines, chassis and spare parts had been purchased by third-party customers for job-work, and the rickshaws were registered by the dealer itself. The High Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's order and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment and the Tribunal's order were vitiated because they were said to rest solely on the excise department's notice, and whether the finding that 166 Chhakdo rickshaws represented taxable sales and not job-work was perverse.

Analysis: The reassessment order was examined with the surrounding material and was found not to have been based merely on the excise notice. The authority had issued reassessment notice, considered the dealer's response, and relied on material on record. On facts, the authorities found that 326 rickshaws had been cleared while only 160 were accounted for, and the dealer failed to produce supporting documents showing that the engines, chassis and spare parts were purchased by third-party customers for job-work. The agreements relied on were insufficient in the absence of bills or other documentary proof, and the dealer itself had effected registration of the rickshaws. The concurrent factual findings were therefore neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment and the Tribunal's order failed. The findings that the assessee had effected taxable sales and not mere job-work were upheld, and no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence will not be interfered with in tax appeal unless they are shown to be perverse or unsupported by the record.

---