Substantial question of law absent where excise demand rested on search recoveries, statements, and corroborating records.

An appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was found not to raise any substantial question of law where the Tribunal had sustained duty demand on the basis of search recoveries, the proprietor's statements, and corroborating buyer and transporter records. The Court treated objections to the search, the recovered documents, alleged coercion in recording statements, and non-cross-examination of panch witnesses as matters of factual appreciation already examined by the Tribunal. As the challenge went only to evidence and factual inferences, no legal infirmity was shown and the Tribunal's finding of clandestine removal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose for interference in an appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where the demand of central excise duty was sustained by the Tribunal on the basis of search recoveries, statements of the proprietor, and corroborating third-party records.

Analysis: The Court noted that the Tribunal had examined the material on record and had returned findings that the recovered documents, the proprietor's statements recorded on multiple occasions, and the corroboration from the buyer and transporter supported the finding of clandestine removal. The challenge to the search, the use of recovered documents, the alleged coercion in recording the statement, and the complaint regarding non-cross-examination of panch witnesses were all treated as factual matters already dealt with by the Tribunal. The Court further held that the appellant's grievance was directed essentially against appreciation of evidence and factual inferences rather than any legal infirmity.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal's decision sustaining the duty demand was not interfered with and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was held to turn on factual appreciation of evidence, so the revenue's demand as upheld by the Tribunal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will not lie where the challenge is confined to factual findings based on evidence, corroborative materials, and witness statements, and no substantial question of law is shown to arise.

---