Concurrent factual findings on scrap clearance and Modvat credit barred duty demand, leaving no substantial question of law.

Duty and penalty on waste and scrap cleared from capital goods were not exigible where the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently found, on the facts, that the scrap was not shown to arise from the very goods on which Modvat credit had been taken. The High Court held that this finding was neither perverse nor unsupported by material, so no substantial question of law arose for interference. On that basis, the Revenue's challenge failed and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty and penalty on waste and scrap of capital goods were exigible when the lower appellate authorities found, as a matter of fact, that the capital goods cleared as scrap were not shown to be the same goods in respect of which Modvat credit had been availed.

Analysis: The dispute turned on a factual determination recorded by both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal that there was no material to show that the capital goods from which the waste and scrap arose were the very goods on which Modvat credit had been claimed. On that finding, the consequence followed that no duty was payable on the clearance of the scrap. The High Court noted that the finding was neither shown to be perverse nor unsupported by material, and therefore no substantial question of law arose for interference.

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

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the controversy was resolved on unshaken findings of fact, leaving no legal question for consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: No substantial question of law arises where the liability dispute is concluded by concurrent factual findings that are neither perverse nor based on no material.

---