Central Excise Case No.165 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Central Excise Case No.165 of 2002 Date of Decision: January 16,2009 Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-I ..Petitioner Versus M/s G.S.Radiators and anther ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA Present:- Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. This is a petition filed under Section 35 H (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, `the Act'), seeking direction to the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') to state facts of the case and refer following questions of law to this court claiming to have emerged from order dated 30.1. 2002 ( P-3) passed by the Tribunal :- “(i) Whether CEGAT is justified in extending benefit of ignorance of law and `bona fide belief' to a manufacturer who admitted recovery of seized goods and who is fully aware of tax statutes? Central Excise Case No.165 of 2002 (ii) Whether availment of credit of duty paid on inputs in contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sufficient ground for invoking Rule 571 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.” It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal in its order dated 30.1.2002 has confirmed the duty demand of the Revenue for the month of March, 1999 and has set aside the demand in respect of February, 1999. The basic reason for the rejection of the demand for the month of February 1999 is that the entries in their statutory record for the month of November 1999 would show that no inputs was issued in respect of that month although there was a production of radiators. The issuance of inputs had been shown for the month of March, 1999. At the most for the month of March, 1999, the non-accountal modvat credit proportionately could have been disallowed. It was in the context of the aforementioned factual position that the Tribunal modified the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which was passed on 30.7.2001. Having head learned counsel at a considerable length, we do not find that any question of law would arise for determination from the order of the Tribunal. The effort of the learned counsel for the Revenue to persuade us to refer the question has not succeeded because the Tribunal has not extended the benefit of ignorance of law to the dealers nor there is any contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the reference petition fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE January 16,2009 ( H.S.B HALLA ) vk JUDGE