IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.641 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, C.R. Building B.C. Patel Path, Patna ------ Appellant. Versus M/S H.M.P Sugar Ltd. M/S Tirupati Sugar Ltd. Narainpur Bagha, West Champaran, Bihar ------ Respondent. ---------------------------------- 8. 30.8.2011 Heard Mrs. Archana Meenakshee for the appellant, and Mr. Viveka Nand for the respondent. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944, is directed against the order dated 16.8.2007, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata, in Excise Application No.416 of 2006, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed on the strength of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2005 (183) E.L.T. 351(Bom.). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court: (1) Whether it is correct in law that the learned Tribunal set aside the well founded orders of the fact finding court without appreciating any fact and law merely citing an order of another Tribunal. (2) Whether the respondent is not legally bound to pay the duty and penalty for not 2 discharging the liability for both the fortnight of Dec. 2000 and Ist fortnight of Jan.2001 on the due date not even up to 07.01.2002, although respondent deposited Rs. 5,86,075/- excluding interest against outstanding dues, is clear violation of Rule 8(i) of the said rule while the facility under the said rule was withdrawn by the Rule Deputy Commissioner Laheriasaria vide its order dt. 8.02.2002 communicated to the respondent on 11.02.2002.” 3. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record and consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that the appeal raises issues of facts. No question of law, much-less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent has rightly relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sulabh International Social Service Organisation, 2011(3) BBCJ 117, to which one of us (S. K. Katriar,J.), was a party. That was an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Adverting to Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, and relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court this Court defined the concept of “substantial question of law” occurring in Section 260A of the Act. It is quite clear to us that Section 35G of the Central Excise Act is in Para Meteria of those 3 provisions of law. On a perusal of the materials on record, we have no manner of doubt that this appeal raises only issues of facts. No question of law, much-less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration. This appeal is not maintainable. 4. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)