Page 104 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

638 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

thority. Moreover, the Knitwear Club, Ludhiana which is an independent
body have also stated in their letter dated 19 May, 2005 that in normal
course, there is a wastage of around 40% same has also not been considered
by the Adjudicating Authority but without bringing any corroborative evi-
dence apart from statement of Shri Baldev Singh demand has been con-
firmed.”
8. With regard to onus to prove clandestine clearances by sufficient co-
gent, unimpeachable evidence, the Tribunal has held that :-
“20. We also find that the onus to prove clandestine clearances has to be
discharged by sufficient cogent, unimpeachable evidence as held in case of
CCE v. Laxmi Engg. Works - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 205 (P & H), Shingar Lamps Pvt.
Ltd. v CCE, 2002 (150) E.L.T. 290 (T), CCE v. Shingar Lamps Pvt. Ltd., 2010
(255) E.L.T. 221 (P & H), Ruby Chlorates (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 2006 (204) E.L.T. 607
(T), CCE v. Gopi Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (302) E.L.T. 435 (T), CCE v. Gopi
Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (310) E.L.T. 299 (Guj.), Aum Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. v.
CCE, 2014 (311) E.L.T. 354 (T), Sharma Chemicals v. CCE, 2001 (130) E.L.T.
271 (T), Resha Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2006 (202) E.L.T. 332 (T), Atlas Conduc-
tors v. CCE, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 231 (T), Vishwa Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2012
(278) E.L.T. 362 (T), CCE v. Vishwa Traders Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (287) E.L.T. 243
(Guj.), CCE Swati Polyester, 2015 (321) E.L.T. 423 (Guj.), Commissioner v. Swa-
ti Polyester - 2015 (321) E.L.T. A-217 (S.C.), Flevel International v. CCE, 2016
(332) E.L.T. 416 (Guj.), CCE v. Renny Steel Casting (P) Ltd., 2012 (283) E.L.T.
563 (T), CCE v. Akshay Roll Mills Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (342) E.L.T. 277 (T), Industrial
Filter & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2014 (307) E.L.T. 131 (T), CCE v. Birla NGK
Insulators Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (337) E.L.T. 119 (T), CCE v. Ganesh Agro Steel Indus-
tries, 2012 (275) E.L.T. 470 (T), UOI v. MSS Foods Products Ltd., 2011 (264)
E.L.T. 165 (P & H), CCE v. Sree Rajeswari Mills Ltd., 2009 (246) E.L.T. 750 (T),
CCE v. Sree Rajeswari Mills Ltd., 2011 (272) E.L.T. 49 (Mad.), Shardha Forge
Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2005 (179) E.L.T. 336 (T), Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2014
(311) E.L.T. 529 (T), TGL Poshak Corporation v. CCE, 2002 (140) E.L.T. 187 (T).
In view of said judgments we find that the charges of clandestine removal
on the basis of pen drive data and sheets are not sustainable.”
9. In view of the aforesaid findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal,
after considering the material placed before it, no question of law much less any
substantial question of law arises for consideration out of the impugned order
and accordingly, the appeals are summarily rejected. No order as to cost.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 638 (M.P.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
S.C. Sharma and Shailendra Shukla, JJ.
MPD INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Writ Petition Nos. 18142 of 2019 & 18252 of 2017, decided on 29-2-2020
EXIM - Advance authorisation licence - Proof of export - Failure to
prepare “Bills of Export” at time of supply of goods made to SEZ Unit - Of-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  104