No substantial question of law arose where abatement was supported by an unchallenged precedent and Board circular.

No substantial question of law arose where the Tribunal followed an earlier unchallenged decision and a Board circular stating that abatement could not be denied merely because duty was not paid in advance. In the absence of any contrary position being shown, the High Court left the impugned order undisturbed and declined to entertain the appeal, which was dismissed at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose in the appeal in light of the Tribunal's reliance on an earlier decision and the Board's circular on abatement.

Analysis: The appeal challenged an order founded on an earlier Tribunal decision. The earlier decision was shown to remain unchallenged, and it was also based on a Board circular stating that abatement could not be denied merely because duty was not paid in advance. On these facts, no contrary position was demonstrated.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The appeal was not entertained and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was left undisturbed and the appeal stood rejected at the threshold.

---