JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala & Surya Prakash Kesarwani, JJ. We have heard Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.D. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.D. Vyas, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The assessee indicated in its balance sheet physical loss of certain goods. The department made an inquiry in which it was revealed that the goods were destroyed on 9th March, 2001 on account of leakage of water from the chilling plant and water bath of tape plant during the Holi festival. On this basis, the department initiated proceedings and a show cause notice was issued to show cause as to why duty should not be levied for clandestine removal of the goods. The Assessing Officer after considering the matter dropped the proceedings. 3. In the appeal of the department, the matter was reversed against which, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The first appellate authority held that there was no proof that intimation of leakage of water was given to the police authorities. The Tribunal found that intimation was given to the police authorities and the excise department and also made inquiry with the fire department and were informed that the matter was reported to them by the assessee. On this basis, the Tribunal found that it was not a case of clandestine removal but loss of goods on account of leakage. This being a finding of fact, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 4. The appeal fails and is dismissed. ………………..