Held, the Director of the Appellant had admitted recovery of parallel invoices for clandestine removal. The statements of traders pointed to clandestine receipt of impugned goods without payment of duty under the cover of parallel Central Excise invoices. It is a settled legal position that the High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of facts based on pure appreciation of evidence, even if it was possible to take a different view unless such concurrent findings are patently perverse or based on manifest misreading of any legal provision so as to give rise to a substantial question of law. Therefore, in the face of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence on record, it was not possible to state that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence Appeal dismissed.
