Clandestine removal findings based on unrebutted evidence did not raise any substantial question of law.

A Tribunal finding of clandestine removal of fabrics, supported by unrebutted statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and by the appellant's own admission of excess seized fabrics over statutory records, was treated as a pure finding of fact. The retraction was raised only in the reply to the show cause notice and did not effectively displace the evidence. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty were sustained, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The challenge therefore failed because the Tribunal's factual conclusions were sufficient to support the excise liability and penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding of clandestine removal of fabrics and the consequential demand of duty and penalty gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal's conclusion rested on a pure finding of fact supported by statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from the proprietor, the clerk and the buyer. Those statements consistently indicated removal of fabrics without payment of duty during the relevant period, quantified the removal, and were not effectively controverted. The retraction was made only in the reply to the show cause notice, and the appellant also admitted that seized fabrics were in excess of the statutory records. On that basis, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the demand and penalty.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the challenge to the Tribunal's findings failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not be entertained on merits and was rejected on the ground that the Tribunal's factual findings were sufficient to uphold the duty demand and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A pure finding of fact based on unrebutted evidence of clandestine removal does not give rise to a substantial question of law.

---