C.E.A No. 41 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.E.A No. 41 of 2007 Date of decision : September 09, 2008 Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana ...... Appellant through Mr.Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate v. M/S Didar Steel Complex Pvt Ltd, ...... Respondent through Mr.Sanjiv Thakur, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The revenue has filed the present appeal proposing the following question of law :- “Whether the Tribunal is justified in vacating the demand confirmed under the erstwhile Rule 57I of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and penalty imposed under the erstwhile Rule 173Q(bb) of the Rules when the raw material on which the buyer (M/S Didar Steel) has availed the Modvat Credit was neither manufactured by the supplier (M/S Luxmi Steel, Mandi Gobindgarh) nor received by the buyer (M/S Didar Steel) as evident from the departmental investigation.” C.E.A No. 41 of 2007 ::2:: The respondent is engaged in the manufacturing of non alloy steel ingots falling under sub-heading 72 and 73 and were availing the facility of modvat credit under rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It had availed modvat credit on certain invoices issued by M/S Lakshmi Steel. An investigation carried out against the said concern indicated that they did not have any manufacturing facility and nor were there any raw material or finished goods and that it was engaged only in paper transaction. On this account a show cause notice was issued to the respondent for denial of modvat credit availed by it on the said invoices. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand which was upheld in appeal by the learned Commissioner. In second appeal the learned Tribunal set aside the findings of the authorities below holding that the respondent had produced the evidence of transportation of inputs through three different transport operators and that the only evidence against the respondent was the Order-in-Original passed against M/S Lakshmi Steel. In view of the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal, we are satisfied that the proposed question is, in-fact, not a question of law but a question of fact. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 09, 2008 'kk'