CEA No. 67 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No. 67 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision 18 .8.2009 M/s Ranjeev alloys Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Kakria ,Advocate 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. The instant appeal filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity 'the Act') is directed against order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The assessee has claimed in para 15 that following four substantial questions of law would emerge from the order of the Tribunal. “ i)Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the inputs had not been received by the appellants solely on the ground that the invoices issued by Consignment Agent of TISCO to intermediary dealer bore vehicle numbers which were that of light motor vehicles. ii)Whether it could be alleged that the inputs had not been received by the appellants when the Department had not produced any alternative source of supply of inputs which were CEA No. 67 of 2009(O&M) 2 used in the manufacture of finished goods. iii)Whether the Tribunal is right in not following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court when the issue involved in both the cases and the evidence available with the Department were also identical. iv)Whether penalty is imposable when there is no evidence to prove that the material had actually not been received.” A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that a categorical finding has been recorded that inputs could not have been received in the factory of the appellant- assessee in the vehicles mentioned in the invoices. The aforesaid finding is based on the report submitted by the Regional Transport Officer wherein it is certified that the registration particulars belong to the vehicles other than the goods transport vehicles with 10 ton capacity. The appellant- assessee has failed to prove that the goods were brought in the vehicles as mentioned in the invoices. The excuses of the appellant- assessee that gate registers were burnt in some fire and the bills/ vouchers indicating the payment to the owner and driver of the truck were destroyed in fire did not cut any ice because the ledger and registers making entries of those transactions could have been produced. It was not asserted that the ledger and registers were also destroyed in a fire. In the case of appellant- assessee 99 vehicles were found to be such that they could not have supplied the goods from the dealer to buyer because the number of vehicles belonged to auto-rickshaws, motor cycles and some numbers did not exist. Only one or two vehicles were found to be a regular carrier of goods. Therefore, it was established that the input has not been transported in the vehicle mentioned in the invoices and therefore no such inputs were CEA No. 67 of 2009(O&M) 3 required in the factory of the appellant- assessee as per the requirement of Rule 57(9) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We have heard learned counsel at some length and find that no question of law much less a substantial question of law would arise for determination of this Court. There are pure findings of fact based on evidence and official record. This Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and record a different finding even if another view is possible. The appeal is wholly mis-conceived and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The costs be deposited with the Member Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Punjab. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 18.8.2009 Judge okg