IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CEA No. 7 of 2006 Decided on: May 12, 2010. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. ..Applicant Versus M/s Dabur India Ltd. Baddi, Distt. Solan. ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No. For the Applicant: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the respondent : Mr. Dev Nath and Rahul Mahajan, Advocates. Justice R.B. Misra,J (Oral). The present Central Excise Appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh as an appellant under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act, 1944 in reference to order dated 16.12.2005 passed by Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CESTAT') in reference to its final order No. 1036-1038/05-EX dated 16.12.2005, on the ground that the following referred question, is a substantial question of law. “Whether excise duty is leviable on “Control Samples” drawn and retained by the party, considering it to be deemed removal under Rule 9 & Rule 49 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944”. 1 2. The final order No. 1036-1038/05-EX dated 16.12.2005 of 'CESTAT' came for consideration before High Court of (P&H) (D.B.) which has approved the verdict of 'CESTAT' dated 16.12.2005 as reported in Commissioner versus Dabur India Limited, 2005 (182) E.L.T. 185. After analyzing the order dated 16.12.2005 of 'CESTAT', the approval of the same has already been given by High Court (of P & H). While considering CEA No. 3 of 2005, Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh versus M/S Dabur India Limited, in reference to order dated 8.2.2005, this Court (D.B.) vide its Court order dated 12.5.2010 considered the issue, whether excise duty is leviable on “control Samples” drawn and retained by the Party, considering it to be deemed removal under Rule 9 & Rule 49 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944”, and has observed that above question of law is not a substantial question of law, and has been dismissed CEA No. 3 of 2005. In the present CEA No. 7 of 2006, the above question has been referred, which is same, as such, for the reasons recorded in our order dated 12.5.2010 in CEA No.3 of 2005, the question referred in present Appeal is not a substantial question of law. 3. Relying upon the decision of Commissioner versus Dabur India Limited, 2005 (182) E.L.T. 185, the Larger Bench of 'CESTAT' has passed an order No. 1036-1038/05-EX dated 16.12.2005, which has also been approved by High Court (of P&H) in Commissioner of C.EX., Panchkula versus Malcom Pharmaceuticals in CEA No. 101 of 2005 decided on 20.2.2008, as such, we have also no occasion to take the different view other than 2 what has been taken by High Court (P&H), in view of our above mentioned analysis. 3. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in our order dated 12.5.2010 in CEA No. 3 of 2005 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh versus M/S Dabur India Limited, the present appeal is also dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge May 12, 2010 (V.K. Sharma) (Purohit) Judge 3