Page 98 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

632 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

the said LPA deals with the entitlement of the benefits of SFIS, under the FTP
2009-2014 and not under the FTP 2004-2009.
35. This being the sole ground on which Respondent No. 1 claimed for
refund of duty, paid by it, was rejected, the rejection could not sustain. The
Learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly allowed both the aforesaid writ peti-
tions.
36. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements,
there is no substance in these Letters Patent Appeals and hence, the same are
dismissed.
CM Appl. No. 25321/2015 (stay) in LPA 770/2015
CM Appl. No. 42998/2019 (stay) in LPA 631/2019
37. In view of the orders passed in these Letters Patent Appeals, these
applications stand disposed of.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 632 (Guj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

J.B. Pardiwala and Bhargav D. Karia, JJ.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE
Versus

SHAH FOILS LTD.
R/Tax Appeal No. 659 of 2019 with R/Tax Appeal Nos. 660-661 of 2019,
decided on 8-1-2020
1
Evidence - Clandestine removal - Electronic evidence - Pen drive data
is not substantial evidence, especially in absence of evidence how extra con-
sideration was given and received by assessee - Demand for clandestine re-
moval based on undervaluation set aside. [paras 7, 8, 9]
Appeals rejected
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Nirzar S. Desai, Advocate, for the Appellant.
[Order per : Bhargav D. Karia, J. (Oral)]. - Mr. Nirzar Desai, Learned
Advocate for the appellant has tendered Draft Amendment. The same is allowed
in terms of the Draft. To be carried out forthwith.
2. These Tax Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
(for short the “Act”) at the instance of Revenue and are directed against the
common impugned Order No. A/10120-10125/2019, dated 18-1-2019 passed by
the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Western Zonal Bench,
Ahmedabad in Appeal Nos. E/10151/2018, E/11436/2018 and E/11433/2018.
3. As the Tribunal has passed the common order in case of the appel-
lant-Company and its two Directors, all three appeals are disposed of by this
common order.
4. The following substantial questions of law are proposed by the Rev-
enue :-
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Final Order Nos. A/10120-10125/2019, dated 18-1-2019 by CESTAT, Ahmedabad.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  98