Suppression of sales is a pure question of fact where production records and excise verification control the legal outcome.

Alleged suppression of sales based on power-consumption disparity was treated as a pure question of fact because the Tribunal relied on day-to-day production accounts, excise verification, and the absence of those records for the year under appeal. On that factual record, the dispute did not give rise to a substantial question of law, so appellate interference was unwarranted. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to seek recall or fresh consideration before the Tribunal if the relevant production records were available and material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged suppression of sales based on disparity in power consumption gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The challenge turned on whether the assessee had suppressed sales, but the Tribunal's findings showed that the issue depended on the factual record relating to day-to-day production accounts, verification by excise authorities, and the absence of production of such records in the year under appeal. On those facts, the Court found that the question did not transcend into a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to seek appropriate recall or fresh consideration before the Tribunal if the stated production records had been available and relevant.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether sales were suppressed on the facts of the case was a pure question of fact and, in the absence of a substantial question of law, no interference was warranted in appeal.

---