Concurrent findings on explained stock shortage and no clandestine removal barred confiscation, duty demand, and mandatory penalty.

Concurrent factual findings that stock shortages were explained, RG-1 non-entry did not establish clandestine removal, and no duty demand could be sustained led to rejection of confiscation and mandatory penalty. In the absence of proved clandestine removal, Section 11AC penalty was not invocable. The High Court treated the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal as having properly appreciated the evidence and found no infirmity in those findings. As the dispute turned entirely on concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order setting aside confiscation, reducing penalty for non-entry in the RG-1 register, and declining duty and mandatory penalty on the alleged stock shortage and excess stock.

Analysis: The disputed stock verification and RG-1 entries were examined on facts by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The shortages were accepted as explained, the alleged non-entry in the RG-1 register was treated as not showing clandestine removal, and no basis was found to confirm duty on shortage. In the absence of any established clandestine removal, confiscation was not warranted and mandatory penalty under Section 11AC could not be invoked. The Court found that these were concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence and disclosed no infirmity.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed; the findings in favour of the assessee were sustained.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from the concurrent factual findings, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence, including acceptance of explained shortage and absence of proved clandestine removal, do not give rise to a substantial question of law.

---