No substantial question of law arose in the de-bonding dispute, leaving the Tribunal's relief undisturbed.

The revenue's appeal on de-bonding and duty on stock lying on the date of the final exit order was rejected because no substantial question of law arose for interference under section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal had followed an earlier decision involving the same assessee on the same de-bonding issue, and the connected appeal had already been dismissed as infructuous. As the earlier orders had attained finality and no surviving legal question was shown, the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's claim was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose in the revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's claim in relation to de-bonding and duty on stock lying on the date of the final exit order.

Analysis: The Tribunal had relied on an earlier decision involving the same assessee on the same de-bonding issue, and the connected appeal had already been dismissed as infructuous. The earlier orders had attained finality, and the revenue did not establish any surviving legal question requiring interference under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---