Penalty set aside for lack of evidence of intent to evade duty; factual findings left no question of law for interference.

No interference was warranted where the Tribunal had found, on the record, no material showing fraud, collusion or intention to evade duty and had set aside the penalty. Those findings were treated as pure findings of fact, leaving no substantial question of law for consideration under the excise appeal provision. The respondent's status as a government undertaking also made an inference of duty evasion difficult on the facts found. The challenge was therefore declined at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere in an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Tribunal's order setting aside penalty on the ground that there was no material to infer intention to evade duty.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that no material was brought on record to show fraud, collusion, or any intention to evade duty, and had accordingly set aside the penalty. The High Court found that these were pure findings of fact and that no exception was made out for interference. It also noted that the respondent was a government undertaking, making an inference of duty evasion difficult on the facts found.

Conclusion: The appeal did not give rise to any question of law warranting admission, and interference with the Tribunal's order was declined.

---