https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285088 In an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the High Court will not examine purely factual controversies unless a substantial question of law is shown. The dispute concerned wrongly availed Cenvat credit and a resulting demand under the Finance Act, 1994, with the notice issued after the normal period under Section 73(1). The Court treated the proposed grounds as factual in nature and declined to enter the limitation challenge in the absence of a qualifying legal issue. No substantial question of law was found, so the appeal was not entertainable on the factual challenge raised. en-us Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Dec 2019 16:42:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285088 In an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the High Court will not examine purely factual controversies unless a substantial question of law is shown. The dispute concerned wrongly availed Cenvat credit and a resulting demand under the Finance Act, 1994, with the notice issued after the normal period under Section 73(1). The Court treated the proposed grounds as factual in nature and declined to enter the limitation challenge in the absence of a qualifying legal issue. No substantial question of law was found, so the appeal was not entertainable on the factual challenge raised. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285088