IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.E.A. No.178 of 2010 & other connected cases being CEA Nos.179, 180, 182, 183 and 185 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.12.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Shiv Saraswati Steel Pvt. Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Standing Counsel for the appellant/revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of all the six appeals mentioned above as it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that all the appeals involve common question of law. 2. C.E.A. No.178 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 4.5.2009, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Octroi receipts containing details of vehicle number, C.E.A. No.178 of 2010 description and quantity of goods issued by the State Revenue Authority authenticating removal of goods but without consignor’s name & address and his bill number, do not constitute sufficient evidence for holding that the goods covered under the octroi receipts were not received by the parties enabling them to take cenvat credit fraudulently?” 2. On receipt of information that M/s Shiva Castings (Pvt.) Limited, Mandi Gobindgarh was removing finished goods clandestinely and thus, evading duty payable under the Central Excise Act, 1944, preventive staff of the department visited the said factory on 13.8.2003 and found that parallel invoices had been issued in respect of finished goods for effecting clearance without payment of duty. Accordingly, after issuing Show Cause Notice dated 10.8.2004, Order-in-original dated 30.12.2005 was passed, confirming demand for duty and also levying penalty not only against M/s Shiva Castings Pvt. Ltd. but also against the respondents in all the appeals, whose names were entered as consignees of goods in the invoices. On appeal, the Order-in- original was set aside. On further appeal by the department, the Tribunal upheld the demand of duty and penalty against the consignor but set aside the levy of penalty against the consignees/respondents. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. It is not disputed that in similar circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal was upheld by this Court in C.E.A. 2 C.E.A. No.178 of 2010 No.47 of 2009 CCE v. M/s Swastik Steel Works decided on 8.7.2009, wherein it was held that mere fact that name of consignee was entered in the invoices, falsely prepared by a consignor to evade payment of duty, was not enough to visit the consignee with the penalty unless involvement of the consignee was established. 5. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 22, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 3