CEA No. 73 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No. 73 of 2009 Date of decision 18 .8.2009 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate ..Appellant Versus M/s Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel (Indirect Taxes) for the appellant 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is directed against order dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has endorsed the view taken by the Commissioner ( Appeals) by holding that the Adjudicating Authority was not within its power to confiscate the goods worth Rs. 3,12,198/- . The value of other goods in respect of work in progress was Rs. 7,800/-. The Commissioner ( Appeals) as well as the Tribunal held that there was no provision for confiscation of the raw material and the goods concerning work in progress. The final goods and the scrap were found lying in the factory. The Tribunal further found that it was not a case of clandestine removal of goods nor it was proved by any corroborating evidence. The Tribunal has also found that no cenvate credit was availed on the raw material and that the dealer- CEA No. 73 of 2009 2 respondent was not a producer nor registered producer and was merely a user of raw material. Accordingly, it was concluded that the goods could not be regarded as excigable goods in terms of Rule 2(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed and feeling aggrieved the revenue has approached this Court. We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and find that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise. On our repeated asking the learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to show any provision dealing with confiscation of raw material which has not been accounted. Moreover, it is admitted case of the parties that no cenvate credit was availed on the raw material and goods were held to be non excigable items. Once no duty is paid then there is no question of availing any cenvate credit on such raw material. Therefore, the appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 18.8.2009 Judge okg