THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.E.A.No. 40 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order dt. 18.10.2007 in Appeal No. Excise/509/2005 passed by the CEASTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore rejecting the appeal and confirming the order dt. 26.4.2004 of the 1st respondent whereby the said respondent dropped further proceedings pursuant to a show cause notice dt. 9.9.2003 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, following the earlier orders of the Tribunal in Ballarpur Industries vs. CCE [2000 (116) ELT 312 and Jawahar Mills Ltd., [1999 (108)ELT 47]. Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that in view of the Circular of the Central Board of Costums dt. 19.4.2005, the Commissioner ought to have kept the proceedings pending instead of dropping further proceedings. It is contended that as against the order of the Tribunal in Ballarpur Industries vs. CCE (supra), an appeal was preferred by the Revenue to the Supreme Court and another appeal has also been admitted by the Supreme Court on the issue of eligibility of CENVAT credit on Blower, Boiler, Power Plant Parts etc., under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs. Southern Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., [ 2001 (128) ELT A69 (SC)], therefore the order under appeal cannot be sustained. The substantial questions of law framed by the Revnue in the appeal are as under: i) Whether CESTAT is justified in stating that the Commissioner was justified in taking up the matter and deciding the issue in terms of the settled ratio of the judgments, when the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is still pending in similar cases. ii) Whether CESTAT is justified in mentioning that the Apex Court had not stayed the judgments which are in favour of assessee, when the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is still pending in similar cases. In the facts and circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for consideration since the grievance is one of procedure rather than substantive. This appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act is therefore misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 08.09.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.E.A.No. 40 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) 08.09.2011.