Concurrent findings of fact upheld where no perversity shown; appellate interference requires specific perversity pleading.

Whether a substantial question of law arose was answered negatively: the tribunal's factual findings on seized goods, shifting of machinery, trial-run production, inadmissibility of computer printouts for statutory non-compliance, and statutory returns showing compliance were held supported by the record, and the revenue failed to produce independent cogent evidence of unaccounted procurement, manufacture or removal; therefore the findings are not perverse and do not warrant interference. The principle applied is that appellate interference with concurrent factual findings is permissible only where perversity is specifically pleaded and established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal raises any substantial question of law and whether the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are perverse so as to warrant interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the evidence including seized goods, notebooks, computer printouts, shifting of machinery and packing material, statutory returns, and statements. It found that the notebooks related to an earlier unit, packing machinery and materials were shifted to a new unit, the computer printouts were inadmissible for non-compliance with statutory requirements, production was during trial runs, and that excise liability arises on removal. The Tribunal recorded that statutory returns for earlier units showed compliance and that the Revenue failed to produce independent, cogent evidence to establish unaccounted procurement, manufacture and removal. These are factual findings founded on the material on record and no material demonstrating perversity in the Tribunal's conclusions has been placed before the Court.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arises; the Tribunal's factual findings are not shown to be perverse and do not warrant interference by this Court.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by a tribunal where those findings are supported by the record; interference is permissible only if perversity is specifically pleaded and established.

---