HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSOARH AT 81LASPUR J^!^^!j'BI^SHRLD^yRE^ RAMtS_^iRA-& HON'BLE SHRI R,N. CHANDRAKAR, J J AflRelJant Union of India, Through Commsssioner, Cenfra! Excsse ans Customs Centrat Excise Bhawan, Dhamtari Road, TikaraDara, Raipur <CG) 492 Respondent M/s Century Cement, Baikunth, Raipur (CG) Present: Mr. Bhishma Kinger, counsei for the appellant/Revenue. ORAL JUDGMENT /7th rsrtnhor '?f \S •-w'^i.UiHf'S} , ib.W i»|i. Per Dhirendra Mishra, J This excise appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 i-s directed against the order dated 9 Mav. 2005 (Annexure A/1) passed bv Customs, Excise & Sewice Tax Appellate Trfbunai, New Deihi (in short "the Tribunai"). The Revenue has preferred this appea! on the substantiai questions of law as mentioned in the Memo of appeal. 02. From perusai of the impugned order, we find that the Tribunai partly aliowed the appeal of the Revenue and denied Vodvat credit to the respondent by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. JK Udyog reported in 2004 (171) ELT 289 ISC}, wherein it has been hetd that Modvat credit on such exptosives is not permissible to the assessee- However, penalty portion of the Order-in-Original has not been restored and it has been held that imposition of penalty on the respondent is not warranted in this case. The Revenue has preferred this appeal and challenged this portion of the impugned order, by which penaity has not been imposed. 03: Heard iearned counsel for the appetlant and perused the orders of the forums beiow. 04. The Tribunal has accepted the arguments of the respondent that it took credit as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaypee Rewa Cement Vs. CC£,reported in 200^ (133) ELT 3 (SC), in which a vjew was taken that tlie creditwas admissjbte and, therefore, penalty is not imposable. 05. Reivina upon the decision of the Supreme Court jn the matter of Union of india Vs. Dfiaramendra Textile Processors reported in (2008) 13 SCC 369 and latest judgment dated 17 March, 2010 of the Supreme Court in the matters of CIT, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. delivered in Cwil Appeal No.2463/10 {arising out of SLP(C) No.27161 of 2008}, we find that no substantja! question of taw, as proposed by the appeilant, arises for adjudffiationjrfttii^appeal and accordingly, we dismiss thisappeat. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^, R.N. Chandrakar Judge SP/B,