Production estimation under Rule 173E may rest on electricity consumption where evidence supports concurrent findings and no perversity is shown.

Under Rule 173E, production may be estimated on the basis of relevant available factors, including electricity consumption, without requiring every listed factor to be present in every case. The authorities relied on search material, unrecorded removals and admissions, and the production estimate was supported by evidence; it was not shown to be arbitrary, perverse or based on no evidence. In an Article 136 challenge, concurrent factual findings based on evidence will not be interfered with unless they are shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. On those facts, the duty and penalty demand sustained by the lower authorities remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the estimation of the assessee's production on the basis of electricity consumption under Rule 173E was valid and whether the concurrent factual findings could be interfered with in appeal.

Analysis: The production of tread-rubber during the relevant period was a question of fact. The authorities had relied on material found during search, including unrecorded removal of goods and admissions in the partner's statement, and the Collector estimated production by adopting the ratio between electricity consumed and production during a base period. The challenge that the estimate was arbitrary failed because there was evidence to support the finding, no inadmissible material was shown to have been relied upon, and the case did not disclose perversity or a finding based on no evidence. Rule 173E does not require all listed factors such as installed capacity, raw material, labour and power consumption to be simultaneously available in every case; the empowered officer may have regard to such relevant factors as are available and appropriate. In the facts found, power consumption could be used as a valid basis for estimation.

Conclusion: The challenge to the production estimate was rejected and the finding sustaining duty demand was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the duty and penalty-based demand as sustained by the lower authorities remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Article 136, concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence, and under Rule 173E production may be estimated on relevant available factors without requiring every factor named in the rule to be present simultaneously.

---