Clandestine removal requires reliable evidence; concurrent factual findings barred any substantial question of law.

Concurrent factual findings that alleged clandestine removal was not proved, and that the duty demand rested only on statutory records and a director's statement, left no substantial question of law for HC consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal accepted that the claimed processing losses were not shown to be unreasonable or misdeclared, and found no reliable evidence of intention to evade duty beyond the statement relied on by Revenue. Those findings were treated as findings of fact, and the authorities cited by Revenue were held inapplicable on the facts. The Revenue's appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts found by the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were right in holding that no substantial question of law arose on the alleged clandestine removal of goods and the duty demand based on statutory records and a statement of the director.

Analysis: The demand and penalty had been sustained originally under the Central Excise Act and the Central Excise Rules. In appeal, both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal recorded concurrent findings that the case was founded on statutory records, that the claimed processing losses were not shown to be unreasonable or misdeclared, and that there was no reliable evidence apart from the statement to establish clandestine removal or an intention to evade duty. Such findings were treated as findings of fact, and the Court held that the decisions relied upon by the Revenue did not apply to the facts of the case.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose; the Revenue's appeal failed.

---