IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA EXCISE APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2010 M/S. SURANA TELECOM LIMITED ... Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ... Respondent Mr. T. George John, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Asst. Solicitor General for the Respondent. Coram:- D. G. KARNIK & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 23rd August, 2010 P.C. The Appeal is directed against the Order dated 24.08.2009, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. 2. In our view, no substantial question of law arises in this Appeal and as such the Appeal is not maintainable. 3. In the inspection carried out by the Excise Authorities on 15th November, 2001, it was found that quantities of certain cables which were in stock, were in excess to the quantities mentioned in the stock register and certain other cables the quantities in the stock were short of the quantities mentioned in the stock register. The Excise Authorities accordingly computed the excise evasion which was challenged by the Appellant in Appeal. In the second Appeal before the CESTAT, the Tribunal has relied upon an admission given by Rajan Francis in which he has clearly admitted that excess stock was on account of not maintaining the daily account stock register properly. As regards to the shortages he has admitted that entries were not made for production and clearance made on 12.11.2001, 13.11.2001 and 14.11.2001 and, therefore, there were shortages. Thus, difference in quantities was admitted. The computation of evasion of excise on the basis of shortages is purely a question of fact not involving any question of law. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that several decisions were cited by the Appellant before the Tribunal but they have not been dealt with in its Judgment. The Tribunal after noting the Judgments in its order, has not dismissed them as the Tribunal on facts came to the conclusion that the records were not properly maintained as also the admission of Rajan Francis of the Appellant. In view of this situation, we do not find any error in the approach of the Tribunal. 5. There is no merit in the Excise Appeal, which is hereby rejected. D. G. KARNIK, J. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*