JUDGMENT Seth, J. -- This is an application under Section 35 (G) (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act of 1944). The assessee has preferred this application after the Tribunal by order dated 13.11.1995 rejected the application of the assessee under section 35(G) (1) to make a reference to this Court for answer on the proposed question of law, which according to assessee arose out of Tribunal's order No. A/771/94-NRB dated 26.8.1994. Facts in brief for the decision of this case are as under. Assessee is a registered Company and has a unit at Dewas for manufacturing of glazed tiles. The factory went into the production of Wall Glazed Tiles in the year 1981. The assessee started manufacturing Glazed Floor Tiles in August, 1986. The factory premises of the assessee were inspected by the Authorities on 5.4.1989 and the records were scrutinized. Certain quantity of Glazed tiles (Wall tiles) glazed paving (floor) tiles and mono/printed tiles were found unaccounted for. After the inspection, a show-cause notice was issued for proposed recovery of duty and imposition of penalty. After hearing assessee, the adjudicating authority rejected defence of the applicant regarding unaccounted tiles and imposed duty and penalty. In appeal, before the Tribunal, contention of the assessee that there was no clandestine removal without payment of excise duty was not accepted. Tribunal by the order dated 26.8.1994 held that department had made out a case and confirmed the duty penalty partly and upheld the confiscation of glazed tiles and also confirmed the penalty. As mentioned above, against the order dated 26.8.1994 assessee moved an application under section 35(G)(1) of the Act requiring the Tribunal to make a reference to this Court and upon rejection of the said application by order dated 13.11.1995, this application under section 35(G) (3) of the Act has been made. We have heard Shri S.N. Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri B.G. Neema, learned counsel for the Revenue. Shri Kohli contended that at the relevant time, the factory was under the production based control. He submitted that each and every excisable item was removed only upon payment of excise duty and there was no clandestine removal of the excisable goods. Shri Kohli contended that at the relevant time, the factory was under the production based control. He submitted that each and every excisable item was removed only upon payment of excise duty and there was no clandestine removal of the excisable goods. Shri Kohli placing reliance on the Calcutta High Court decision reported in [ 1985 (22) ELT 708 ] (Jayashree Textiles and industries and others v. Collector of Central Excise) submitted that assessee had filed the return on RT-12 form and as such there is no evasion of excise duty. Learned counsel for the revenue Shri B.G. Neema submitted that assessee allowed the Tribunal's order dated 26.8.1994 to attain the finality. He further submitted that if the assessee was aggrieved by the order then he could have challenged the same in a Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in this connection Shri B.G. Neema placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in (L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others) reported in AIR 1997, SC 1125. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a careful scrutiny of the order passed by the Tribunal on 13.11.1995, we find that no question of law arises which requires the consideration of this Court. The Tribunal while rejecting the application under section 35(G) (1) of the Act had held that while deciding the appeal preferred by the assessee, the Tribunal came to the conclusion on the basis of appreciation of evidence adduced before it. The Tribunal further held that the appreciation of evidence gives rise only to a question of fact and not to a question of law. In view of this finding that no question of law is involved, therefore, the Tribunal refused to make the reference. We find that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. We are also satisfied with the correctness of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal. So, there is no question of requiring the Appellate Tribunal to state and refer the case to this Court. The reliance placed on the decision of Calcutta High Court by the learned counsel for the applicant is of no a\ail inasmuch as the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the case before the Calcutta High Court. So, there is no question of requiring the Appellate Tribunal to state and refer the case to this Court. The reliance placed on the decision of Calcutta High Court by the learned counsel for the applicant is of no a\ail inasmuch as the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the case before the Calcutta High Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no substance and merit in the application under section 35(G) (3) of the Act. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.