Concurrent findings of stock shortage and clandestine removal were upheld, with no interference in reference jurisdiction.

Concurrent findings that single ply yarn was short in stock, based on the RG-1 register, invoices and physical verification, were treated as pure findings of fact. The High Court held that it could not reappreciate the evidence in reference jurisdiction and would interfere only if the findings were perverse, unsupported by evidence, or otherwise legally infirm. As no such infirmity was shown, the finding of clandestine removal was upheld and the demand and penalty were sustained; no referable question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding of clandestine removal of 68.996 MT of single ply yarn and the consequent demand and penalty could be interfered with in reference jurisdiction.

Analysis: The stock discrepancy was examined by the adjudicating authority, the appellate authority, and the Tribunal on the basis of the RG-1 register, invoices, and the manufacturing process. The authorities concurrently held that the shortage existed at the stage of single ply yarn and was not attributable to wastage arising from conversion into double ply yarn. The Court held that the question whether there was shortage on the date of search was a pure question of fact, and that it could not reappreciate evidence already considered by the fact-finding authorities. In the absence of any perversity, lack of evidence, or legal infirmity, the concurrent factual findings were not open to interference.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine removal was upheld and the demand and penalty were sustained.

Final Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the reference petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence, including stock records and physical verification, are not interfered with in reference jurisdiction unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or otherwise legally infirm.

---