https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782825 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. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782825 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782825