Clandestine removal findings based on evidence raised no substantial question of law and the tax appeal failed.

Tribunal findings on clandestine removal and contravention of excise rules were based on detailed appreciation of evidence, including an operational factory, running machinery and recorded partner statements, and those findings were left undisturbed. The plea of denial of cross-examination was rejected because the officers whose examination was sought had not recorded the statements in question. The High Court held that the challenge raised only factual disputes and did not disclose any substantial question of law, so the tax appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's findings on clandestine removal, violation of excise rules, and denial of cross-examination.

Analysis: The Tribunal had examined the evidence in detail and recorded factual findings that the factory was found operational, the machinery was running, statements of partners were recorded, and the record supported the conclusion of clandestine removal and contravention of excise law. The plea of denial of cross-examination was rejected because the officers whose cross-examination was sought had not recorded the statements in question. The High Court held that the challenge was confined to factual appreciation and did not disclose any question of law.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's factual findings were left undisturbed and the tax appeal stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal's conclusion on clandestine removal rests on appreciation of evidence and no legal infirmity is shown, the dispute remains one of fact and does not give rise to a substantial question of law.

---