Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. These are two petitions under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Company and its Director are the petitioners. They pray that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :- Whether the Honble Tribunal is correct in law in arriving at a conclusion that the consumption of 852 units is sufficient for the production of 1 M.T. Steel ingots in the case of the petitioner when the Central Excise Deptt., has already fixed the norms of consumption of 1000 units of steel ingots in the case of induction furnance. 2. A few facts as relevant for the decision of these cases may be briefly noticed. 3. In pursuance to an information that the petitioners were indulging in suppression of production and clandestine removal of the steel ingots, a surveillance was kept on the activities of the company. On October 11, 1990, a truck bearing No. PUR 7537 was intercepted. The driver produced a Central Excise Gate Pass No. 515 showing the removal of 14.230 MTs of steel ingots. He and various other persons were questioned. The officers visited the factory premises and took certain record into possession. It was noticed that the truck had already transported stocks measuring 14.230 MTs in the morning. On the basis of the same Gate Pass No. 515, another consignment weighing 14.030 MTs was being removed. The factual position was admitted by Mr. C.L. Nagpal - the Managing Director of the Company. Further investigation was conducted. Record relating to the payment of octroi at various checks posts at Ludhiana, Gobindgarh and Shambu barriers was collected. The statements of various employees of the company were also recorded. 4. On April 8, 1991, the Company was given a notice to show cause as to why - (i) The steel ingots weighing 14.030 MTs be not confiscated. (ii The truck used in transporting non-duty paid steel ingots be not confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act. (ii Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 59,13,056.26 be not imposed on the suppressed production of 10618.784 MTs of steel ingots clandestinely removed during the period be not recovered from them. 5. Similarly, even the Directors of the Company were called upon to explain as to why penalty be not imposed upon them. (ii Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 59,13,056.26 be not imposed on the suppressed production of 10618.784 MTs of steel ingots clandestinely removed during the period be not recovered from them. 5. Similarly, even the Directors of the Company were called upon to explain as to why penalty be not imposed upon them. A copy of the show cause notice as issued to the Company is at Annexure P-1 with the petition. 6. The Petitioners filed a reply to the show cause notice. The matter was disposed of by the Commissioner vide order dated December 16, 1992. A copy of the order passed in respect of the Company is at Annexure P-3. On appeal before the Tribunal, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for the grant of further opportunity. The matter was decided by the Commissioner vide order dated August 17, 1995. A copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P-5 with the petition. In fact, separate appeals were filed by the company and its two Directors. The three appeals were consolidated and were dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated December 24, 1997. A copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P-7. Then, the petitioners filed applications for reference to this Court under Section 35G(1). These applications and also the petitions for stay of recovery were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated August 25, 1998. A copy of the order is at Annexure P-9 with the petition. Hence these petitions. 7. It may be noticed at the outset that the Company, the Managing Director - Mr. C.L. Nagpal and the Director - Mr. R.P. Nagpal had filed the three appeals. These were disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated December 24, 1997. However, only two petitions under Section 35G(3) have been filed. It appears that Mr. C.L. Nagpal - the Managing Director has not filed any petition. It may also be mentioned that in the petition under Section 35G(1), three questions had been raised for reference to this Court. However, in the present petitions, only one question has been raised. 8. The petitions were filed on October 6, 1999. These were placed before different Benches and were periodically adjourned. These have been placed before this Bench today, July 24, 2001. 9. Mr. However, in the present petitions, only one question has been raised. 8. The petitions were filed on October 6, 1999. These were placed before different Benches and were periodically adjourned. These have been placed before this Bench today, July 24, 2001. 9. Mr. O.P. Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal had erred in dismissing the appeal as the directions contained in the order of remand passed on May 14, 1993 had not been carried out by the Commissioner. He further contended that the report of January, 1990 prepared by the employees of the company could not form the basis for determining the production of the unit from March, 1988 to October, 1990. Counsel also submitted that in view of these factors, the order of the Tribunal was vitiated and that the substantial questions of law as mentioned above arises for the opinion of this Court. Is it so? 10. Admittedly, truck No. PUR 7537 was intercepted on October 11, 1990. On demand, the truck driver had produced the Central Excise Gate Pass No. 515. It indicated the removal of 14.230 MTs of steel ingots from the factory premises at 0850 hours. On being questioned, Wirsa Singh - the driver had admitted that a consignment of ingots on the Gate Pass had already been transported. The said gate pass was being used for transporting the second consignment of ingots. Shri Jeet Singh - the Security Supervisor of the petitioner - company had admitted that on the directions of the owners of the factory, he had not recorded the removal of the consignment of steel ingots loaded in Truck No. PUR 7537 and cleared from the factory at 1500 hours on 11-10-1990. Similarly, the statements of various other employees including the Production Superintendent, the Melters etc. were recorded. Still further, the statement of Mr. C.L. Nagpal - the Managing Director of the company was also recorded. He had admitted that non-issue of another gate pass without payment of duty was due to the mistake committed by their employee. Shortage of steel ingots weighing 14.230 MTs detected by the officers in the course of physical verification can be ascribed to the second clearance on the same gate pass. He had offered to pay the duty on the unaccounted production and clearance after checking of records. He was confronted with the statements of the driver and other employees. Shortage of steel ingots weighing 14.230 MTs detected by the officers in the course of physical verification can be ascribed to the second clearance on the same gate pass. He had offered to pay the duty on the unaccounted production and clearance after checking of records. He was confronted with the statements of the driver and other employees. He had admitted these to be correct. 11. Besides the oral testimony, even documentary evidence was also gathered. The records of octroi, Posts of Khanna and Mandi Gobindgarh were examined. The figures of production were verified on the basis of the monthly report for January, 1990. It was noticed that there was production of 2073 MTs steel ingots. However, an entry of only 1771 MTs had been made in the statutory records. It was also noticed that 1764475 KWH units of electricity had been consumed in the month of January, 1990 for the manufacture of 2073 MTs of steel ingots etc. Further investigations had also been conducted. 12. It is true that some of the employees had resiled from their original statements at the subsequent stage. However, it is on consideration of the entire evidence that the Tribunal has decided the matter. It has recorded a firm finding in paragraph 36 of its order that the goods were being clandestinely removed.... . Nothing was pointed out by the Counsel to show that this finding is incorrect. However, the main emphasis of the Counsel was based on the appreciation of evidence relating to the consumption of electricity. In fact, this is the central issue in this case and the question raised by the petitioners is directed towards this dispute only. 13. The issue relating to the consumption of electricity has also been considered by the Tribunal. It has noticed the report of the manufacturer of the equipment installed at the petitioners factory viz. M/s. Hindustan Brown Boveri Limited. The Tribunal has also taken note of the monthly production report for January, 1990. It has found that the results of trial runs conducted in other factories were not reliable. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that during his service with the petitioners, Mr. A.V. Shenoi, the General Manager (Technical) had been asked to prepare reports on monthly production for submission to the Managing Director and the Director of the Company. It has found that the results of trial runs conducted in other factories were not reliable. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that during his service with the petitioners, Mr. A.V. Shenoi, the General Manager (Technical) had been asked to prepare reports on monthly production for submission to the Managing Director and the Director of the Company. It is on examination of the data that the Tribunal has come to the finding of fact with regard to the production by the petitioner-company. 14. Mr. Goyal contended that the report for a single month could not form the basis for adjudging the production for a period of more than one year. Thus, the entire order passed by the Tribunal is vitiated. This contention cannot be accepted. The report is not the solitary basis for determining the production. The Tribunal has considered the other records as well. It has taken into account the factors recorded on the  rough pads which showed the removal of the goods which had not been mentioned in the statutory records. The sales tax records and the octroi receipts also indicated the removal of goods in excess of those shown in the registers of the company. 15. On a perusal of the material on record, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has not referred to any material to show that these findings are not in conformity with the evidence on the record. 16. Mr. Goyal contended that in the show cause notice dated July 28, 1997, it had been alleged that the petitioners were consuming 1061 units of electricity for producing 1 MT of steel ingots. Thus, the figure of production as found by the Tribunal cannot be accepted as correct. 17. We are unable to accept this contention. The dispute relates to the period from the year 1988 to 1990. By 1997, the equipment had become seven years older. Its efficiency was bound to be reduced. The show cause notice issued after the lapse of seven years cannot mean that the consumption in 1990 has been erroneously fixed by the Tribunal. 18. No other point was raised. 19. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the order passed by the Tribunal is in conformity with law. It is not illegal or untenable. It calls for no interference. 18. No other point was raised. 19. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the order passed by the Tribunal is in conformity with law. It is not illegal or untenable. It calls for no interference. No question of law arises for the opinion of this Court. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed.