Perverse finding standard in excise appeals: concurrent duty and penalty findings were upheld on the existing record.

Concurrent findings sustaining duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act were not shown to be perverse or to reflect non-application of mind. The High Court noted that the liability arose from alleged removal and clearance of goods without proper accounting or payment of duty, and that the Commissioner's re-adjudication after remand was based on the record and other material, not merely on inspection statements. In an appeal under section 35G, interference with factual findings is limited to cases of perversity, and that threshold was not met. The substantial question of law was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding of the appellate tribunal affirming the penalty and duty liability suffered from non-application of mind or perversity so as to warrant interference in an appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The Court noted that the duty and penalty demand arose from alleged removal and clearance of 15 kg tins without proper accounting and without payment of duty, followed by adjudication, remand, and re-quantification by the Commissioner. It held that the re-adjudication was based not merely on statements recorded during inspection but on the records and other material on file. The Court further held that, in an appeal under section 35G, concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with only if they are shown to be perverse, and no such perversity was established.

Conclusion: The finding sustaining the duty and penalty was not perverse and did not suffer from non-application of mind; the substantial question of law was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---