IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CEA No. 8 of 2008 alongwith CEA No. 10 and 11 of 2008. Date of decision: 29.7.2011. CEA No. 8 of 2008 Commissioner, Central Excise Chandigarh …Appellant. Versus M/s Adhunik Packagers (P) Ltd …Respondent. CEA No. 10 of 2008 Commissioner, Central Excise Chandigarh …Appellant. Versus M/s Hitkari Industries Ltd. …Respondent. CEA No. 11 of 2008 Commissioner, Central Excise Chandigarh …Appellant. Versus Sh. Jaiwant Berry …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor In all the appeals General of India. I For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate In CEA No. 8 of 2008. In CEA No. 10 & 11 of 2008 Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgement since identical question of law is involved. 2. All the appeals were admitted on the following question of law:- “Whether Cenvat credit can be allowed on inputs which have not been proved to be received in the manufacturing unit for manufacture of dutiable products in contravention to the erstwhile Rule 57G(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.” 3. The question of law as framed presumes that the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product were not proved to have been received in the manufacturing unit. In all the cases the Commissioner (Appeals) gave a specific finding that the assessee had proved beyond doubt that they had received the inputs in question and the same has been used by them in the manufacture of the final product. This finding has been upheld in appeal by the Tribunal. In fact no material was placed before the Tribunal to controvert the findings of the Commissioner of Appeals. With the present appeal(s) now the department wants to rely on certain material which was never produced before the Assessing Officer or Revenue Authorities upto the level of the Tribunal. At this stage, the department cannot be permitted to place additional evidence on record. 4. On the material on record, the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have come to a clear finding of fact that the assessee has proved beyond reasonable doubt that they have 3 received the inputs in question and the same were used by them in the manufacture of final product. This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be assailed in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. No question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved in all the appeals. The appeals are accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 29th July, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), J. ™