https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173984 A challenge under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 failed because the proposed questions of law were treated as questions of evidence and fact. The court relied on findings that the unit had suppressed facts concerning clandestine removal and job work and had breached exemption conditions, which supported the duty demand and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. On that factual matrix, no substantial question of law arose for interference, so the appeal could not succeed. en-us Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2015 18:29:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173984 A challenge under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 failed because the proposed questions of law were treated as questions of evidence and fact. The court relied on findings that the unit had suppressed facts concerning clandestine removal and job work and had breached exemption conditions, which supported the duty demand and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. On that factual matrix, no substantial question of law arose for interference, so the appeal could not succeed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173984