ORDER : Civil Appeal No. 663 of 2005 1. This civil appeal, filed by the Revenue, under Section 35-L (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”) arises from the final order dated 15-6-2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (for short “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No. E/368/02-MAS. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption for the first clearances of 3500 MT of paper under Notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 1-3-2000 as amended by Notification No. 36/2000-CE dated 4-5-2000. 2. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of paper of different varieties falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Sometime in the year 2000, they bifurcated the factory into two separate units with the addition of some machinery. The factory premises of the assessee were searched by the officers of the Excise Department and on the basis of the material collected during the course of search, the Commissioner was of the view that the assessee had bifurcated the old unit into two only with a view to avail of the benefit of the aforementioned notification, even though the two units were not distinct and separate. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee. However, upon consideration of the reply submitted by the assessee, the Commissioner dropped the proceedings for which the said show-cause notice had been issued by him. 3. In the order of adjudication, the Commissioner recorded the following findings: “13. As per the notification, excisable goods, namely, paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 manufactured in a factory equipped with the machinery to manufacture from the stage of pulp to the stage of paper are exempted for first clearances up to 3500 MT from 1-4-2000. In this case, there is no dispute that the item paper manufactured by the assessee was exigible to duty under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The next condition in the notification is that the intending unit should be equipped with the machinery to manufacture paper starting from the stage of pulp to the stage of paper by using unconventional raw material. The next condition in the notification is that the intending unit should be equipped with the machinery to manufacture paper starting from the stage of pulp to the stage of paper by using unconventional raw material. The assessee has submitted that they have got two separate streams of production for manufacture of paper from the stage of pulp to the stage of paper. It is also said that each stream of production was independent of each other. The facts are not disputed in the notice. Therefore, the condition with reference to manufacture in a factory is held as fulfilled. It is also not in dispute that the clearances of 3500 MT for which exemption has been claimed separately by the two units took place from the individual units. Therefore the condition with reference to clearance from a factory is held as fulfilled. The units have also not claimed the benefit of the SSI notifications. I am therefore satisfied that the terms and conditions of Notification No. 6/2000 dated 1-3-2000 as amended have been duly complied with by the units for the purpose of availing the benefit.” 4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. As already stated, by the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 5. From a bare reading of the afore extracted paragraph of the order passed by the Commissioner, which has been affirmed by the Tribunal, it is manifest that both the authorities below have found as a fact that both the units had the requisite equipment for manufacture of paper starting from the stage of pulp to the final stage of the end product i.e. paper. The finding is a pure question of fact and is not put in issue by the Revenue. That being so, the impugned order does not give rise to any question of law. Resultantly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. We order accordingly with no order as to costs. Civil Appeals Nos. 1085, 1086, 1229, 1434 and 1680 of 2005 6. Civil Appeal No. 1680 of 2005 is also taken on board. 7. In view of our order in Civil Appeal No. 663 of 2005, these appeals are also dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.