Questions of fact, not law, barred interference with central excise duty demand and penalty challenge.

A challenge under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 failed because the proposed questions of law were treated as questions of evidence and fact. The court relied on findings that the unit had suppressed facts concerning clandestine removal and job work and had breached exemption conditions, which supported the duty demand and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. On that factual matrix, no substantial question of law arose for interference, so the appeal could not succeed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed questions of law arising from the appeal were in fact pure questions of evidence and fact so as not to warrant interference.

Analysis: The appeal was brought under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The challenge to penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules and to the duty demand was examined in the context of findings that the unit had suppressed facts relating to clandestine removal and job work and had contravened the exemption conditions. On the proven factual matrix, the proposed questions were held to be questions of evidence and fact rather than substantial questions of law.

Conclusion: The proposed questions did not arise in the appeal, and the challenge failed.

---