Substantial question of law in Central Excise appeals limits interference with concurrent factual findings on receipt of capital goods.

An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 lies only where a substantial question of law arises. On the facts, the dispute concerned whether the assessee had received capital goods and proved delivery through invoices and bills of entry. Those matters were treated as factual findings by the departmental authority and the Tribunal, and no independent legal question was shown. Concurrent findings that the assessee received the capital goods and satisfied Rule 57T(3) were therefore not open to reappraisal in an appeal confined to legal questions. The appeal accordingly failed because it sought to reopen findings of fact without disclosing any substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 involved any substantial question of law; (ii) whether the concurrent factual findings that the assessee received the capital goods and complied with Rule 57T(3) of the Central Excise Rules could be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 involved any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The appeal lay only if a substantial question of law arose. The record showed that the dispute turned on whether the assessee had received the capital goods and established delivery through invoices and bills of entry. These matters were treated by the departmental authority and the Tribunal as factual matters. No independent legal question was shown to arise from the record.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose under Section 35G.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent factual findings that the assessee received the capital goods and complied with Rule 57T(3) of the Central Excise Rules could be interfered with.

Analysis: The authority and the Tribunal both recorded concurrent findings that the assessee had received the capital goods and proved receipt through the prescribed documents, thereby satisfying the requirement of Rule 57T(3). Such concurrent findings of fact were not open to de novo reappraisal in an appeal confined to substantial questions of law.

Conclusion: The concurrent findings were binding and warranted no interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because it raised no substantial question of law and sought to reopen concurrent findings of fact which could not be disturbed in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, concurrent findings of fact that are based on evidence and do not disclose any legal error do not give rise to a substantial question of law.

---