CEA No. 74of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No. 74 of 2009 Date of decision 18.8.2009 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate ..Appellant Versus M/s Jaimata Alloys (P) Ltd. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel (Indirect Taxes )for the appellant 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The revenue has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging ord3r dated 2.1.2008 passed by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal in its order has held that the dealer respondent had received duty paid goods returned back to its factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason. They availed credit of duty paid by the buyer on such returned goods in accordance with Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for brevity 'the Rules'). After extracting Rule 16(1) of the Rules, the Tribunal has taken the view that the dealer- assessee was entitled to cenvate credit of the duty paid as if such goods received were inputs under the Cenvate Credit Rules, 2002. The dealer- respondent has availed the credit of the duty paid by the supplier. The Tribunal has placed reliance on a Division Bench CEA No. 74of 2009 2 judgement of this Court in the case of Commissioner Central Excise v. Swaraj Automotives 2002(139) ELT 504. We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and do not feel persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Swaraj Automotive's case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal. It has not been suggested by the counsel for the revenue that the aforesaid decision is not applicable or has placed any such proposition of law which run contrary either to the rules or any judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. To the same effect is another Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Perfect Synthetics 2006(206) ELT 71. Accordingly, we find that no question of law much less a substantive question of law would require adjudication at the hands of this Court within the meaning of Section 35(G) of the Act. The appeal does not warrant admission and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 18.8.2009 Judge okg