IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.E.A No. 2 of 2007 alongwith CEA No. 3 to 14 of 2007 & 16 to 25 of 2007. Date of decision: 10.11.2009 C.E.A. No. 2 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Malwa Fastner Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 3 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Durga Fiber Packs Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 4 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Time Packaging Ltd., …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 5 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Jayanti Plastic Industries. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 6 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Manjushree Plastics Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No.7 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Super Plateck Pvt. Ltd.. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 8 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Valiant Plast Pvt. Ltd.. …Respondent. 2 C.E.A. No. 9 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Vallant Plast Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 10 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Veer Vision Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 11 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Parwanoo Plastic Industries. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 12 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Durga Fibre Packs Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 13 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Shivalik Agro Poly Products Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 14 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Veer Vision Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 16 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus S.S.Gupta (Director) …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 17 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Karan and Company …Respondent. 3 C.E.A. No. 18 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Time Packaging Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 19 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Aggarwal and Company. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 20 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Bhagwati Plastic Industries. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 21 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Plato Industries Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 22 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Plato Industries Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 23 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Himalyan Plastics Ltd. …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 24 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Bhagwati Plastic Industries …Respondent. C.E.A. No. 25 of 2007 Commissioner of Central Excise …Appellant. Versus M/s Himalyan Plastics Ltd.. …Respondent. 4 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor (in all the appeals) General of India. For the respondent: Mr. M.M.Khanna Sr. Advocate with In CEA No. 19 to 25 of 2007 Mr. Goverdhan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate In CEA No. 2/07, 5 to 9 of 2007, 16 & 17 of 2007 For the respondent : Mr. J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate. In CEA No. 4 and 18 of 2007 Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgement since identical questions of fact and law are involved. 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.” 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 5 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. 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 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. 10th November 2009 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™