- (1.) The Revenue has filed this petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It claims that the following question of law arises for the opinion of this Court: Whether circumstantial evidence placed on records is not sufficient to prove the clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods?
(2.) Mr. Gumber, learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the first respondent was manufacturing worsted woollen yarn and selling it. Thus, excuse duty and penalty etc. had been validly levied. The Tribunal has erred in reversing the order. Is it so?
(3.) There is a delay of two days in filing the petition. Mr. Gumber prays that the delay be condoned. Even if we overlook the delay, there is no merit in the petition.;