https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91867 Circumstantial evidence that only created suspicion, without proving a dealer-registration violation, was treated as insufficient to sustain the penalty under the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanations and treated the matter as one of factual appreciation of evidence. As the sufficiency of evidence does not itself raise a question of law, the correctness of that factual finding could not be reopened in reference jurisdiction. The reference applications were therefore rejected and the order deleting penalty remained undisturbed. en-us Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:42:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91867 Circumstantial evidence that only created suspicion, without proving a dealer-registration violation, was treated as insufficient to sustain the penalty under the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanations and treated the matter as one of factual appreciation of evidence. As the sufficiency of evidence does not itself raise a question of law, the correctness of that factual finding could not be reopened in reference jurisdiction. The reference applications were therefore rejected and the order deleting penalty remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91867