IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No.131 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 16, 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar ...Appellant Versus DCM Engineering Products ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal has been filed at the instance of revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 6.8.2007, passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) upholding the order dated 30.6.2005, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. The Tribunal has found as a fact that the recipients of inputs had received the inputs which were used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that there was no evidence on record to show C.E.A. No. 131 of 2008 any alternate source of inputs. Once the aforesaid findings have been recorded, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. Moreover, we have already dismissed a bunch of 21 appeals wherein similar orders passed by the Tribunal were subject matter of challenge, vide order dated 24.2.2009 passed in CEA No. 108 of 2008 (Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Nirmal Kumar Aggarwal). The principle of consistency obviously would apply. Moreover, there are firm findings that the inputs have been used in the final product and there was no evidence to show that any other method of supplying the inputs except the supply made by the dealer. Accordingly no question of law would arise for adjudication much less a substantive question of law within the meaning of Section 35 G of the Act. The appeal does not warrant admission and consequently dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) April 16, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2