Central Excise Appeal No.65 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No.65 of 2005 Date of Decision:-17.2.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissionerate, Chandigarh ...Appellant Versus M/s Sunshine Steels Corpn. GT Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Distt.Fatehgarh Sahib. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr.Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral) The revenue has filed this appeal under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the impugned order dated 2.9.2004 (Annexure P3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. In this case, the following substantial question of law has arisen for consideration:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the MODVAT credit on captive consumption of inputs can be availed by the assessee when it has fulfilled the conditions of payment of excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 when the goods were removed from the re- rolling Mill manufacturing inputs to forging factory under the invoice price by a cheque in separate account though both the factories are owned by the same person.” Central Excise Appeal No.65 of 2005 2 Learned counsel for the parties are agreeable that the aforesaid substantial question has been squarely covered by a judgment of Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court reported as Shivagrico Implements Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur 2009 (235) E.L.T. 51 (Raj.), wherein it has been held as under:- “The object of providing Modvat credit is to avoid double taxation by way of excise duty on the same thing. Here in the present case, the manufacturer of inputs in supplying the inputs to its forging division, so also to the other manufacturers of the final product in the market as well, and the other manufacturers are duly availing Modvat credit. In these circumstances, there is no earthly reason, not to allow the Modvat credit to the forging division of assessee, simply because the two units are owned by the same company and/or are situated in the same premises.” In this case, the respondent was captive consumption of re-rolled products in their factory. The Tribunal has also placed reliance upon Shivagrico Implements Ltd's case (supra) while deciding the case in favour of the assessee. In view of the above, the present case is squarely covered by Shivagrico Implements Ltd's case (supra). Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 17.2.2010 Judge AS