https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462266 Concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence do not give rise to a substantial question of law absent legal error or perversity. The Tribunal rejected the Department's reliance on a pocket diary, noted inconsistencies with the panchnama, and found the alleged duty demand unsupported by corroborative material. The High Court treated those findings as purely factual and held that no legal issue arose from the record. The appeal was therefore not entertained on merits and was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal's order undisturbed. en-us Wed, 09 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2025 15:29:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462266 Concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence do not give rise to a substantial question of law absent legal error or perversity. The Tribunal rejected the Department's reliance on a pocket diary, noted inconsistencies with the panchnama, and found the alleged duty demand unsupported by corroborative material. The High Court treated those findings as purely factual and held that no legal issue arose from the record. The appeal was therefore not entertained on merits and was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal's order undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462266