IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH STA No.14 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.11.2011 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, …Appellant Ludhiana Versus M/s Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd., …Respondent Phillaur (Punjab) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The Revenue is in appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 aggrieved against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi on 10.12.2010. The Revenue has claimed the following substantial question of law, as arisen from the order of the Tribunal: “Whether a person, who is not actual service provider, but discharges the service tax liability on the taxable services under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, as a deemed service provider, is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on inputs/input services/capital goods for payment of GTA service tax, even if he is not using such inputs/input services/capital goods for providing taxable services by virtue of deeming legal fiction?” Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the question of law, as raised by the Revenue in the present appeal, stands concluded against the Revenue in CEA No.99 of 2008 titled “Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. and others” (decided on 06.05.2010). In view of the said fact, we do not find that any question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21.11.2011 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Vimal JUDGE