https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763718 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. en-us Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Dec 2024 09:00:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763718 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763718