https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332839 In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will not reappreciate the Settlement Commission's factual findings unless perversity is shown. The dispute concerned excise duty liability arising from alleged undervaluation and non-inclusion of tooling cost, but the Commission had found that the duty liability was accepted, the tooling agreement explained the timing of payment, and no mala fides were established. As no perversity was demonstrated, interference was declined and the challenge to the Commission's order failed. en-us Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jan 2017 10:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332839 In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will not reappreciate the Settlement Commission's factual findings unless perversity is shown. The dispute concerned excise duty liability arising from alleged undervaluation and non-inclusion of tooling cost, but the Commission had found that the duty liability was accepted, the tooling agreement explained the timing of payment, and no mala fides were established. As no perversity was demonstrated, interference was declined and the challenge to the Commission's order failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332839