Natural justice and clandestine removal findings upheld where factual evidence showed no perversity in the Tribunal's appreciation.

Non-joinder of the transporter was not a necessary basis to defeat the duty demand, and the objection was treated as academic in light of the record. The Tribunal's finding of no breach of natural justice and no clandestine removal was upheld because it rested on appraisal of seized documents, registers and affidavits, with no supporting seizure, witness statements, or proof of excess production or removal. No interference under Section 35G was warranted, as the challenge raised findings of fact and no perversity was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to fail for non-joinder of the transporter, and whether the Tribunal's finding that there was no violation of natural justice and no clandestine removal of goods called for interference.

Analysis: The non-joinder of the transporter was held not to be a necessary condition for adjudicating the duty demand, though the question was treated as academic in view of the factual findings. The Tribunal's conclusion that there was no denial of reasonable opportunity and no evidence of clandestine removal was based on appreciation of the seized documents, registers, affidavits, and the absence of supporting material such as seizure, witness statements, or proof of excess production or removal. Interference under Section 35G was not warranted because the findings were findings of fact and no perversity was shown.

Conclusion: The challenge by the Revenue failed, and the assessee's case was sustained on the Tribunal's factual findings.

---