CEA No. 17 to 19 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No.17 of 2009 Date of decision 3 .8.2009 Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh. ... Appellant Versus M/s Sun Home Cable Inds. ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr.Sanjeev Kaushik ,Advocate for the appellant Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellant in CEA 19 of 2009 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of three appeals being CEA Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 2009 because all these appeals have been decided by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal') by a common order dated 2.4.2007 (A.5) and the rectification application against the aforesaid order has also been dismissed on 8.1.2008 (A.6). The appellant- revenue has approached this Court under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with the assertion that the following substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court: “ Whether a confessional statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act,1944 can be considered uncorroborated CEA No. 17 to 19 of 2009 2 when in totality there exists corroborating statements of co- accused and their confessional actions, physical evidences like non existence of stock and non existence of machinery by ignoring the allegations on the ground that relied upon show cause has not been adjudicated ?” The Tribunal in its order dated 2.4.2007 has recorded a categorical finding based on record that the goods by the dealer-respondent no.1 were received from the supplier which were duly accompanied with duty paying documents. The Tribunal has also discarded the theory of fake invoices which are alleged to have been issued by the supplier of input. It was also not disputed by the appellant- revenue in their memo of appeal before the Tribunal that the dealer- respondent no.1 had paid the duty. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise as categorical findings based on record and document have been recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the Commissioner ( A). Even if a view different than the one recorded by them is possible this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and record a finding different than the one recorded by the Tribunal and Commissioner (A). Accordingly, all these appeals fail and the same are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 3.8.2009 Judge okg