Appeal Dismissed in Central Excise Act Case - Penalty Imposed for Clandestine Removal

The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was dismissed by the Court as it did not involve any substantial question of law. The case centered on the clandestine removal of goods without payment of excise duty, with the Court upholding the findings of the Tribunal based on evidence. The imposition of penalty under Section 11AC was deemed justified once the clandestine removal was established, indicating mens rea. As the appeal did not raise any legal questions on admitted facts, the Court ruled against interference, emphasizing that factual determinations by the Tribunal were not subject to re-examination.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against Tribunal's order; Substantial question of law for consideration; Clandestine removal of goods without payment of excise duty; Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC; Interpretation of provisions of Act, circular, or Rule.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a Tribunal order dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. The main issue for consideration was whether the appeal involved any substantial question of law as required under Section 35G. The assessee was engaged in manufacturing man-made fabrics chargeable to central excise duty. The case revolved around the clandestine removal of goods without payment of excise duty, which was found to be established against the appellant after examination by the adjudicating authority, Commissioner of Appeals, and the Tribunal.

The appellant contended that there was no factual basis for the finding of clandestine removal of goods and that the Tribunal's decision was perverse. However, the Court held that the matter involved a question of fact, not a substantial question of law. The Court emphasized that it could not re-examine factual issues or draw inferences based on the assessee's explanations once accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's finding on the issue of clandestine removal was considered detailed and based on evidence, making it non-justiciable as a substantial question of law under Section 35G.

Regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, the Court held that once clandestine removal of goods was established, the element of mens rea against the assessee was proven, justifying the penalty. The appeal did not involve the interpretation of any provision of the Act, circular, or Rule, nor did it raise any question of law on admitted facts under Section 35C. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that it did not present any substantial question of law and did not merit interference. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were awarded in the case.

---