2014 (8) TMI 990 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of SSI Exemption - Brand name - High Court will interfere only if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. This is the position notwithstanding the fact that the subject matter of the appeal should fall within those described in the first limb of sub-section (1) of Section 35G. Adverting to the impugned order of CESTAT we see that the Tribunal has pointedly decided all disputed issues of facts on the contentious point as to whether manufacture of goods was carried out in the brand name of another establishment. The answers given by the Tribunal are purely answers to questions of facts based on the evidence on record. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it did not involve a substantial question of law. The Tribunal had already decided all disputed factual issues, so there was no ground for interference. The appeal was dismissed.