Concurrent factual findings barred interference, so the duty demand and penalties under the compounded levy scheme were left undisturbed.

Concurrent factual findings that the second machine had been installed and used, regular production had begun, and duty had been paid in the ordinary manner did not raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal therefore remained justified in setting aside the demand of duty and penalties for alleged non-compliance with Notification No. 34/2001-CE while availing the special compounded levy scheme, and the High Court declined interference. The challenge failed because the dispute was treated as one of fact, leaving the assessee's relief intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the demand of duty and penalties arising from alleged non-compliance with Notification No. 34/2001-CE while availing the special compounded levy scheme.

Analysis: The Tribunal's conclusion rested on factual findings regarding the installation and use of the second machine, the commencement of regular production, and the period for which duty had been paid in the ordinary manner. The High Court held that these findings were purely factual and did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order setting aside the demand and penalties was upheld, and the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because the controversy was treated as one of fact, leaving the assessee's relief undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings that do not involve a substantial question of law are not open to interference in appeal.

---