Substantial question of law not made out where a junior excise clerk acted under instructions and differed materially from the Managing Director.

A proposed challenge to a penalty imposed on an excise clerk was rejected at the admission stage because no substantial question of law arose. The Court noted that the clerk was a junior employee with limited service and that his statement showed he acted on instructions from the Managing Director. On those facts, the clerk's role was materially different from the Managing Director's, and the appeal was not fit for admission. The proposed substantial question of law was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal warranted admission and formulation of the proposed substantial question of law concerning the penalty imposed on the excise clerk.

Analysis: The respondent was a junior excise clerk with limited service, and his statement showed that he acted on instructions from the Managing Director. The Court found the respondent's role materially different from that of the Managing Director and held that, on these facts, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Conclusion: The appeal was not fit for admission and the proposed substantial question of law was declined.

---