No substantial question of law arose where seized cash lacked proved nexus to clandestine removal, so the revenue appeal failed.

Concurrent factual findings that the seized cash had no proved nexus with clandestine removal of excisable goods were not shown to be perverse. The court noted the absence of corroborative evidence, the absence of a live link between the parties and the cash seizure, and the revenue's failure to prove clandestine removal by evidence rather than suspicion. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the revenue's appeal failed while the finding in favour of the assessee was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue could succeed in the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the absence of perversity in the concurrent factual findings that the seized cash had no proved nexus with clandestine removal of excisable goods.

Analysis: The concurrent authorities had found that there was no cogent material linking the seized cash to clandestine sale proceeds of excisable goods. The factual findings were based on the absence of corroborative evidence, absence of a live link between the parties and the alleged cash seizure, and the inability of the revenue to establish clandestine removal by proof rather than suspicion. Such concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse or contrary to law, and therefore did not warrant interference in a further appeal.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The revenue's appeal failed and the finding in favour of the assessee stood affirmed.

---