:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise, ICE House, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403001. … Appellant V e r s u s M/s Karthik Induction Ltd., Plot No.120, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa 403110. … Respondent Ms. S. Linhare, Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. H. K. Maingi, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 22 nd JUNE, 2011 . ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per S. A. BOBDE, J) This petition is directed against the order dated 11.5.2005 by which the Tribunal has held that there is no warrant for confiscation of the goods manufactured by the respondent's factory and imposition of penalty. The Tribunal, in brief, found that the claim of the Excise that the respondent possessed unrecorded excess stock of 9.540 M.T. of M. S. :2: ingots is not justified since the officers visited the respondent's factory at 10.00 hours and, therefore, it is possible that the goods manufactured by them had not entered into the register when the officers visited the factory and detected the so called excess goods. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings of the Tribunal is perverse since the reasons given by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be an excuse of not entering into the register. We, however, find that there is an affidavit of the respondent, which has not been denied, that the respondent's factory functions in three shifts and the administrative staff of the general shift enters production of the previous day i.e. on 06.09.2001 after 9.00 hours on 07.09.2001, which is the date of the visit. Further that the production and clearances of 07.09.2001 have to be entered on the next day i.e. 08.09.2001 any time before the expiry of the first shift. 3. According to the respondent, this quantity of steel which is the production of 07.09.2001 was not entered into the register on the same day and was therefore not recorded in the register. According to Shri Maingi, learned Counsel for :3: the respondent though this position was pointed out to the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not discussed it in detailed but merely accepted the explanation. In the circumstances, we do not consider it a fit case for interference with the findings of the Tribunal which is passed on the pure finding of fact. There is no perversity in the order of the Tribunal. Hence, Rule discharged. S. A. BOBDE, J F. M. REIS, J at*