Question of law under Central Excise appeal limits interference where penalty deletion turns on factual appreciation.

An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 lies only when the impugned order gives rise to a question of law. Where the Tribunal deletes penalty on the basis of evidence appreciation and factual findings, the challenge remains factual and does not warrant interference under Section 35G. A decision resting on the absence of material to sustain penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 therefore does not present a legal question for appellate consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 gave rise to any question of law warranting interference with the Tribunal's order deleting the penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal's decision was founded on appreciation of the evidence and factual findings that no reason existed to sustain the penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The questions framed at the time of admission did not arise from the Tribunal's order because the challenge was essentially to conclusions reached on facts, not to any legal determination.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the impugned order, and the appeal was not entertainable on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 lies only where a question of law arises from the order under challenge, and a decision resting on factual appreciation does not justify interference.

---