HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’bie Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Tax Case No. 30 of 2010 Union of India, through Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Centrai Excise Bhawan, Dhamtari Road, Tikarapara, Raipur (C.G.) Appei iant Mfs BWL. Ltd. (Steel Wire Division), industrial Estate, Post Box No. —- 14, Bhiiai, Distt. — Durg (C.G.) Respondent Appeai under Section 35-6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 t Present: Shri B. Kinger, counsel for the appellant. Shri BP. Mishra, counsel for the respondent. C R A L 0 D E R (Passed on 28’“ October, 2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J Heard. 1. The appellant/revenue’s appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act against the order dated 16.05.2008 (Annexure-A) of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :- (a) “Whether the CESTAT has erred in allowing cent/at credit on wire rods received from M/s Hire Steels Ltd, Raipar, who were covered under Section 3A of the Centre! Excise Act, 1944”? {b} “Whether the said Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,25,160A availed on the said goods and already utiiized by the respondent is disallowabie and recoverable from them”? W R . At the outset, Shri. B.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent does not come Within ambit of Section 3A of the C‘entral Excise Act, 1944 read with netmcation No. 31/97 CE (NT) dated 01.08.1997. Our attention was drawn to the order dated 28.07.2009 of the Commissioner, Centre! Excise and Customs, Raipur (C.G.), wherein it has been clarified that Mrs Hira Steet Ltd, Raipur does not come within ambit of Section 3A of the Centrai Excise Act, 1944 read with reievant ruies and notifications and demand of duty under the above provisions have been heid to be not sustainable. He further submits that the order of the Commissioner has attained finality as revenue has not preferred any appeal against the same. . Shri Bhishma Kinger, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that in view of the order of Commissioner, the respondent is not covered under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. . ln view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nothing survives in this appeal for adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of. x SCI/- ‘ ‘ RN. Chandrakar, lW1 ‘ Sci/— Dhirendra Mishra Judge