IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.10 OF 2004 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.10 OF 2004 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.10 OF 2004 o The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-IV. ...Appellant V/s M/s.Greaves Cotton & Co.Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.P.S. Jetly with Mr.Y.R. Mishra for Applicant. Mr.Madhur Baya for Respondent. CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.S. AGUIAR, JJ. A.S. AGUIAR, JJ. A.S. AGUIAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 15, 2005. DATED : JUNE 15, 2005. DATED : JUNE 15, 2005. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. By the above appeal, the appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who set-aside the Order dtd.21.7.95 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise Division K-I and allowing the clearance - 2 - of the intermediate products without reversing the modvat credit under NotificationNo.217/86." 3. Both the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent categorically state that the above question of law has already been decided by the Supreme Court in ESCORTS LTD. V/S. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ESCORTS LTD. V/S. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ESCORTS LTD. V/S. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI, reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) DELHI, reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) DELHI, reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) 4. We have also persued the said judgement. In the light of the same, the question is answered in the affirmative in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (A.S. AGUIAR, J.) (A.S. AGUIAR, J.) (A.S. AGUIAR, J.)