Cenvat credit on factual receipt of inputs cannot be disturbed in Section 35-G appeal without a substantial question of law.

Concurrent findings that inputs were received and used in the manufacture of dutiable final products sustained the grant of Cenvat credit, because the assessee had proved receipt and use beyond doubt before the lower authorities. The High Court held that the appellant could not rely on additional material not produced earlier, and such material could not be introduced at the appellate stage. As the issue turned on a pure finding of fact and no material was shown to dislodge it, no substantial question of law arose under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The challenge to denial of Cenvat credit therefore failed and the appeals were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied on the ground that inputs were not proved to have been received in the manufacturing unit for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products, and whether such a finding could give rise to a substantial question of law in appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had both recorded a clear finding that the assessee had proved beyond doubt that the inputs in question were received and used in the manufacture of the final product. The appeal sought to rely on additional material not produced before the lower authorities, which could not be permitted at the appellate stage. The finding regarding receipt and use of inputs was a pure finding of fact, and no material was shown to dislodge it. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The challenge to the grant of Cenvat credit failed, and the appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A concurrent factual finding that inputs were received and used in the manufacture of dutiable final products cannot be interfered with in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the absence of a substantial question of law.

---