- (1.) This appeal is preferred under S. 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the Judgment and Order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. The appellant-Triveni Rubber and Plastics - is a partnership firm. It established a factory for manufacturing tread-rubber. Production was started on 8-10-79. Tread-rubber was dutiable under Tariff Item 16-A(2) of the Schedule to the Act. At that time certain exemption notifications were in operation. According to the notification applicable to the year 1980-81, it is stated, a unit producing goods of a value of less than 5 lakhs was exempt from the provisions of the Act. The said exemption limit was raised to 15 lakhs for the year 1981-82.
(2.) On September 30, 1981, a search was conducted of the premises of the appellant by the officers of the Department. They found that a substantial quantity of tread-rubber (5807 kilograms) was removed from the factory without making an entry in the relevant records. They also recorded the statement of the Managing Partner of the factory in the presence of another partner. In this statement, the Managing Partner admitted not only that 5807 kgms. of tread-rubber was removed from the premises without making an entry but also that they were doctoring their accounts so as to show that their annual production was below the exemption limit. On the basis of the material gathered at the time of the inspection a show cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon him to explain as to why his production during the said years be not estimated at a particular figure and why he should not be called upon to pay the appropriate duty as well as penalty in that behalf. (It is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to mention the precise figures specified in the show cause notice; suffice to say that according to the estimate figures the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification.) The appellant showed cause, whereafter the Collector passed orders on 13-5-83 confirming the show cause notice. The appellant preferred on appeal before the CEGAT. The Tribunal considered the various submissions made by the appellant at length but finding that there is no substance therein, dismissed the appeal.
(3.) In this appeal it is submitted by Mr. Anam, learned counsel for the appellant that the estimate made by the Collector is arbitrary, based on no relevant material and is in the nature of a wild guess. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be remitted back to the Collector for further enquiry. We are unable to accede to the said submission. The quantum of tread-rubber produced in the appellant's factory during the said two years is a question of fact. Unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration the concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed by us in this appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. This is not also a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings.;