Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. Respond e ntNo. 1 is engaged n the manufacture of motor vehicle parts. It claimed M odvat credit. The adjudicating authority ca m e to the conclu s ion that the credit had been claimed on the basis of forged/fake invoices. Thu , the res pondent wa s called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 1,52,159.14. The appeal filed by the respondent hav ng been dismiss d, it approached the Tribunal. On examination of the matter, the Tribunal came to the conclu s ion that th e re was no suppression on the part of the assessee. The demand was barred by time. Thus, the appeal was allowed. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal. It has approached this Court through the present petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 . It prays that the Tribunal be directed to r fer the following two questions of law for the opin on of this Court - (1) Whether RT-12 return filed by Re pondent No. 1 and assessed by the proper officer would mean that credit taken by reason of fraud cannot be recovered by invoking extended period under Rule 57-I whereby Re s pondent No. 1 availed uch credit on the basis of forged/fake invoices ? (2) Whether the fraud committed by Respondent No. 1 and detected by the Assessing Officer after seeking clarification from the Deputy Commissioner and the assessment made by the Assessing Officer in good faith which was earlier to the detection of fraud amount s to knowledge on the part of the Asses s ing Officer and merit s denouncement of the show cau e not i ce in respect of demand raised? 3. The solitary contention raised by M r. Gumber, learned Counsel for the petitioner, s that the vehicle s , in which the goods are alleged to have been tran ported from Ludhiana to Faridabad, are non-existent. Thus, the cla m that the good had been actually returned and that the dut y had been paid, cannot be sustained. 4. The contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, no such contention is shown to have been raised before the Tribunal. Thus, the cla m that the good had been actually returned and that the dut y had been paid, cannot be sustained. 4. The contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, no such contention is shown to have been raised before the Tribunal. Secondly, even in the petition under Section 35 H (1) of the 1944 Act, it has not even been averred that the vehicles , in which the goods had allegedly been transported, were non-existent. In thi s view of the matter, the plea a s raised b y the Revenue cannot be s ustained . 5. In view of the above, we find that no question o law, which may require expre s sion of an opinion by this Court, aries. The finding s of the Tribunal are ba s ed on appreciation of evidence . No other point has been raised. Consequently, the petition is dism iss ed inlimine .