Proof of export and no substantial question of law defeated excise challenge to duty and penalty.

Export-related excise relief could not be claimed where the assessee failed to produce proof of export required under the Central Excise Rules and had not promptly informed the department that the export formalities were not being used. The concurrent findings of the authorities and the tribunal were treated as factual findings not shown to be perverse or unsupported by the record. On that basis, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for interference under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the demand and penalty remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could escape duty and penalty on the ground that export formalities had been completed but proof of export was not produced, and whether the High Court could interfere under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The assessee's case rested on its explanation that the intended export did not materialise because of internal mismanagement and that the required export proof was therefore not available. The authorities below found, on the materials, that the assessee had not produced the proof of export required under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and had also not taken timely steps to inform the department that the export formalities were not being utilised. Those concurrent factual findings were accepted by the appellate tribunal and were not shown to be perverse or unsupported by the record. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law arose for interference in an appeal under section 35G.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to establish a basis to avoid the demand and penalty, and the High Court declined interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, leaving the duty and penalty liability undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where concurrent authorities find that export-related excise formalities were not supported by proof of export and the assessee fails to displace those findings, no substantial question of law arises for interference under section 35G.

---