Factual findings on stock discrepancy and evidentiary weight barred interference, so the penalty deletion under excise rules stood.

The Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's explanation for the alleged stock discrepancy was a finding of fact based on the evidence before it, including the absence of contemporaneous statements from those present at the factory. Revenue's reliance on a later-recorded accountant's statement did not displace that factual assessment, and the evidentiary weight of the materials was for the fact-finder. As no substantial question of law arose from the deletion of penalty under the Central Excise Rules, interference was not warranted and the assessee's position was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable on the basis of the evidence regarding excess stock found during inspection, and whether the Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's explanation gave rise to any question of law.

Analysis: The penalty rested principally on the statement of an accountant recorded after the inspection, while no contemporaneous statement was taken from persons present at the factory when the visits were made. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation regarding stock position and treated the later-prepared material as unreliable. The statement relied upon by Revenue did not displace the explanation accepted by the Tribunal. The assessment of the stock position and the evidentiary value of the material before the Tribunal were matters of fact.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's view was a finding of fact based on the material on record and no substantial question of law arose. The penalty was not restored, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the challenge to deletion of penalty under the Central Excise Rules did not disclose any question of law, leaving the Tribunal's factual determination undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellate fact-finding authority accepts the assessee's explanation on stock discrepancy on the evidence before it, interference is not warranted merely because Revenue relies on a contrary later-recorded statement, as such a determination does not by itself raise a question of law.

---