No substantial question of law arises where Tribunal findings rest on facts and supported precedents bar interference.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where the Tribunal's common order was based on factual appreciation and supported by relevant precedents. Because the challenge did not disclose any debatable legal issue and the reasoning remained confined to facts, appellate interference was unwarranted. The appeal was therefore dismissed in limine.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's common order gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The Tribunal had decided the appeals on facts and had also referred to the applicable judicial precedents. The order under challenge disclosed factual appreciation sufficient to support its conclusion, and the reasoning did not reveal any debatable question of law requiring appellate interference.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal failed and was dismissed in limine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal's conclusion is founded on factual findings and does not disclose a substantial question of law, the High Court will not interfere in appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---