Substantial question of law required to invoke Section 35-G review; purely factual Cenvat credit disputes were not entertainable.

In an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the High Court will not examine purely factual controversies unless a substantial question of law is shown. The dispute concerned wrongly availed Cenvat credit and a resulting demand under the Finance Act, 1994, with the notice issued after the normal period under Section 73(1). The Court treated the proposed grounds as factual in nature and declined to enter the limitation challenge in the absence of a qualifying legal issue. No substantial question of law was found, so the appeal was not entertainable on the factual challenge raised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference, and whether the challenge based on limitation could be examined in such appeal.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a dispute concerning wrongly availed Cenvat credit and the consequent demand under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court noted that the period in dispute was 2011-12 to 2013-14 and that the show cause notice was issued after the normal period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Court held that the proposed questions raised in the memo of appeal were purely factual and that, in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it could not enter into such factual controversy in the absence of a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was not entertainable on the factual challenge raised.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the High Court will not interfere on purely factual disputes unless a substantial question of law is shown.

---