CEA No.101 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CEA No.101 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision:12.5.2008 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus M/s Samrat Spring Leaf Industries and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Ms. Naveender P.K.Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Department/Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by raising the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CCE v. Dhiren Chemicals Ltd. (supra) holding that “unless payment of appropriate duty is made, the benefit of exemption notification shall not be available to the assessee. As in the present matter also, paragraph 4 of the notification contain the condition of payment of appropriate duty, which has not been complied with.” Is it proper for the Ld. CESTAT to give a finding contrary to the conditions enumerated in CEA No.101 of 2007(O&M) 2 paragraph 4 of the notification (which has been reproduced hereinafter) and in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court? 2. Whether the manufacturer of final products is entitled to deemed credit under notification No.58/97-CE (NT) dated 30.8.1997 when the manufacturer-supplier of inputs has not discharged the appropriate Central Excise duty and has given wrong certificate/no certificate on the body of invoices about duty discharged under Rule 96 ZP of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944? 2. Ms. Naveender P.K. Singh, counsel for the appellant, has argued that the Tribunal has erred in law while allowing the appeal of the respondents as the manufacturer/supplier of inputs had not paid Central Excise Duty and has not given a certificate of discharge of duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. 3. However, on the other hand, Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the deemed credit is admissible to the respondents as they discharged their duty liability by producing the invoices issued by the inputs manufacturer. Learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this court rendered in the case M/s Vikas Pipes v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II, 2003(158) ELT 680 (P&H) and CEA No.65 of 2007 decided on 28.1.2008 titled as The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. M/s Namdev Pipes Ltd. 4. Counsel for the appellant has been unable to controvert the said fact. CEA No.101 of 2007(O&M) 3 5. In view of these facts, there is no substantial question of law which arises for our determination in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE May 12, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) ps JUDGE