CEXA 35.08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.41/2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise Daman Appellant Vs. Polycab Cables Pvt.Ltd. Respondent Mr.Pradeep S.Jetly for appellant Mr.Madhur R.Baya for respondents CORAM-J.P.DEVADHAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR ,JJ DATE -12TH JANUARY,2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This appeal was admitted on 18/4/2006 on the following question of law. “Whether the assess had contravened the provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 7(1)(b) of the Canvat Credit Rule, 2001 (Now Cenvat Credit Rule, 2002) in as much as it took Cenvat Credit under Rule 57A E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the CEXA 35.08 2 basis of invalid duty paying documents and utilized the same towards payment of duty on final products, with full knowledge that its sister company the supplier of inputs namely Jaysingh Wires Pvt.Ltd., had issued the supplementary invoice after detection of offence against it? ” 3. In the present case the Tribunal has relied upon its decision in the case of Jaysingh Wires Pvt .Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, in appeal no. 2352/2004 dated 21/2/2005 and deleted the penalty. The appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman against the order of CESTAT in the case of Jaysingh Wires Pvt.Ltd. being Central Excise Appeal No. 35/2008 has been allowed by us today (12/1/2011) by quashing the order of the CESTAT remanding the matter to the file of CESTAT for deciding the question afresh and in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in (Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & CEXA 35.08 3 Weaving Mills ) 2009 (238) E.L.T.3 (S.C.) . Hence the present appeal is also allowed by quashing the order dated 6/6/2005 (Exh.E to the appeal ) . The appeal is restored to the file of CESTAT for deciding the appeal afresh and in accordance with law laid down in the above judgment of the Apex Court. 4. Since the matter pertains to year 2000-2001, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably with a period of six months from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J.) (J.P.Devadhar,J.)