https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786692 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. en-us Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Feb 2026 08:11:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786692 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786692