Article 226 review of Settlement Commission findings is limited absent perversity; factual reassessment was declined.

In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will not reappreciate the Settlement Commission's factual findings unless perversity is shown. The dispute concerned excise duty liability arising from alleged undervaluation and non-inclusion of tooling cost, but the Commission had found that the duty liability was accepted, the tooling agreement explained the timing of payment, and no mala fides were established. As no perversity was demonstrated, interference was declined and the challenge to the Commission's order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted under Article 226 with the order of the Settlement Commission in the absence of perversity.

Analysis: The application before the Settlement Commission concerned excise duty liability arising from alleged undervaluation and non-inclusion of tooling cost. The Commission recorded factual findings that the duty liability had been accepted, the tooling agreement explained the timing of payment, and no mala fides were shown. In writ jurisdiction, the Court would not sit in appeal over the Commission's factual assessment unless perversity was demonstrated.

Conclusion: Interference was not warranted and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Settlement Commission's order failed, and the Court declined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of perversity, the High Court will not reappreciate the factual findings of the Settlement Commission under Article 226.

---