Suppression and limitation findings based on facts did not raise a substantial question of law in the revenue appeal.

In an appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose because the Tribunal's view on suppression and limitation was based on factual appreciation. The Tribunal had found that the assessee filed ST-3 returns and disclosed material facts, so the show cause notice invoking the extended period was not sustainable. As no perversity was shown in those findings, the court declined interference and rejected the revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's conclusion that the extended period of limitation was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose in the revenue's appeal, and whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the extended period of limitation was not available.

Analysis: The appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which permits interference only where a substantial question of law arises. The Tribunal had reached a factual conclusion that the assessee had been filing ST-3 returns and disclosing material facts, and that the show cause notice invoking the extended period was not sustainable on the facts. The High Court found no perversity in those findings and no legal question warranting interference.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose and the revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's view on limitation was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal's conclusion on suppression and limitation rests on factual appreciation and is not shown to be perverse, no substantial question of law arises in an appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---