https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48395 Concurrent findings that clandestine removal and intent to evade duty were not established did not give rise to a substantial question of law. The appellate authorities accepted the explanation for non-entry in the RG-1 register, found no proof that the goods had reached a marketable stage or been removed with mala fides, and upheld the setting aside of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Central Excise Rules. In the absence of any legal issue warranting interference with those factual findings, the appeal was held not maintainable on the points raised. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:08:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48395 Concurrent findings that clandestine removal and intent to evade duty were not established did not give rise to a substantial question of law. The appellate authorities accepted the explanation for non-entry in the RG-1 register, found no proof that the goods had reached a marketable stage or been removed with mala fides, and upheld the setting aside of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Central Excise Rules. In the absence of any legal issue warranting interference with those factual findings, the appeal was held not maintainable on the points raised. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48395