1 cexa42.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2010 The Commissioner Central Excise Nasik Commissionerate, .....Appellant. Vs. M/s. Mahindra Sona Ltd. ......Respondent. Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for the Appellant. Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/by PDS Legal for the Respondent. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : JUNE 21, 2011 P.C.: On the delay being condoned and the Appeal being restored to file, the Appeal has been taken up on board with the consent of counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent and has been called out for hearing. 2 Counsel on behalf of the Revenue states that the issues raised in the Appeal are covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in 2 cexa42.10.sxw ssm Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Limited 1 . In view of this, no substantial questions of law would arise. However, in terms of the observations contained in paragraph 40 of the Judgment of the Division Bench, the proceedings shall stand remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verifying as to whether any amount has been paid, in respect of the food consumed in the statutory canteen by the workers, to the Respondent. In the event it is found that any amount has been paid to the Respondent by the workers, the Respondent would not be entitled to CENVAT credit proportionate to the amounts recovered from the employees. 3 The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) 1 2010(260) E.L.T. 369