1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Central Excise. ...Applicant vs. M/s.Pharma Cap. ...Respondent. --- Mr.P.S.Jetly with A.S.Rao with Y.R.Mishra, for Applicant. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 21st October,2008. P.C.:- 1. This application was admitted on 9.6.2005 on the following questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee could pay duty on the goods manufactured and 2 cleared by it and taken credit of the inputs used in the manufacture of these goods. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, since the goods were exempted from duty in terms of clause (2) of paragraph 1 of Notification No.1/93 the question of payment of duty on them could not arise and hence modvat credit could not be taken on the duty paid on the inputs and the Tribunal has therefore, erred in its findings. 3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that “it is possible for an assessee to conclude that they would not comply with either or both of the conditions and therefore not to claim the exemption. 4. Whether the Tribunal is correct in observing that a conditional notification has to be distinguished from the exemption granted by unconditional notification.” The learned Counsel appearing for applicant fairly states that similar questions raised by the revenue in the case “The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V Vs. M/s.Shefjo Plastics” in Central Excise 3 Appeal no.16 of 2004 has been dismissed on 29.9.2005. In this view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by calling for a statement of the case. Hence, the application is dismissed. Rule Discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)