M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE instant appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity 'the Act') prays for quashing Final Order dated 15 -9 -2011 (A.7) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal') [ : 2013 (297) E.L.T. 92 (Tri. -Del.)] holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of circular No. 306/22/97 -CX, dated 20 -3 -2007. The appellant also claimed that job workers were exempt from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 21486 -CE., dated 25 -3 -1986. It was claimed before the authorities below that challan in respect of goods clearly indicated movement of excisable goods under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore the goods were not liable to any duty. Further in para 3, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the appellant failed to satisfy the authorities that the finished goods had suffered duty as there was no evidence available to show that the job worked goods were used in manufacturing duty paid goods. The third condition in the notification was to the effect that ultimate manufacturer was to discharge the liability of the job worked goods and accordingly the claim was negated as it was not found to be covered by the notification dated 25 -3 -1986. The Tribunal then proceeded to examine the case of the appellant for extending the benefit of circular dated 20 -3 -1997. The appellant has operated for the year 1993 -94 and the claim has been repelled On the ground that benefit of circular issued in 1997 cannot be extended to the appellant. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from the following observations made in para 6 which reads thus : "6. We have also looked into the Circular No. , dated 20 -3 -1997. That circular categorically states, that duty liability is dischargeable by manufacturer of final goods and not by job worker if the goods are received for job work under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Circular is subordinate to the legislative mandate incorporated in Notification. Therefore, the Circular is to be read in same spirit as the law requires. When the appellant claims to be benefited from Circular the date of effect of Circular is 20 -3 -1997. The appellant operated for the year 1993 -94, we are unable to extend the benefit claimed by appellant in terms of Circular since circular deals with no Cenvat Credit enjoyable by a Job Worker where duty liability is of manufacturer. The context of present appeal is on the issue of liability but not Cenvat Credit. Intention of the legislature when conveyed from a specified date that cannot be read as to have retrospective effect. This we say, following the Apex Court's judgment in the case of CCE v. Sunwin Technosolution Pvt. Ltd. -, 2011 (21) S.T.R. 97 (S.C.). Further the issue in this case is that the person who is supposed to have sent the raw material was not paying any excise duty and hence he could not have taken Cenvat Credit or sent the goods for job work under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944." We have heard learned counsel and are of the view that no question of law much less substantial question of law would arise for determination of this Court. There are findings of fact recorded by the authorities that there was no evidence to show that the job worked goods were used in manufactured duty paid goods. In the absence of any such evidence there was no possibility of extending the benefit of circular dated 25 -3 -1986 to the appellant. No substantive question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed.;