IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No.108 of 2008 Date of Decision: 24 .2.2009 Commissioner, Central Excise commissioner, Chandigarh ...Appellant Versus Shri Nirmal Kumar Aggarwal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. P.K.Kataria , Central Govt. Standing Counsel, 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. This order shall dispose of 21 appeals2 as common question of law has been raised therein. 2. These appeals have been filed at the instance of revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) against a common order dated 30.3.2007 (A-3) passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) upholding the order dated 24.12.2004 (A.2) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh. The Tribunal has found as a fact that the recipients of inputs had received the inputs which were used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of C.E.A. No. 108 of 2008 duty. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that there was no evidence on record to show any alternate source of inputs. Additionally, the Tribunal has placed reliance on its earlier view taken in the case of M/s Adhunik Steels Ltd and others v. CCE, Final Order 305-326 of 2007/SM(B), dated 14.2.2007, as also the order dated 5.3.2007 titled as CEE Chandigarh v. M/s Neepaz Steels (India) and others, Final Order No. 437 to 447/07. Once the aforesaid findings have been recorded and the view has been consistently taken by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to admit these appeals because the revenue seems to have accepted those orders of the Tribunal passed in the cases of M/s Adhunik Steel Ltd (supra) and M/s Neepaz Steels (India) (supra). The principles of consistency obviously would apply. Moreover, there are firm findings that the inputs have been used in the final product and there was no evidence to show that any other method of supplying the inputs except the supply made by the dealer. Accordingly no question of law would arise for adjudication much less a substantive question of law within the meaning of Section 35 G of the Act. The appeals do not warrant admission and are consequently dismissed. 3. A copy of this order be placed on the files of all the connected appeals. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA ) February 24, 2009 JUDGE Okg/Pkapoor 2 2 1.CEA No. 108 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Nirmal Kumar Agarwal2.CEA No. 109 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Sushanta Banerjee3.CEA No. 110 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Tata Irons Steel Co.4.CEA No. 111 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Adhunik Steels Ltd.5.CEA No. 112 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Vishal Goyal 6.CEA No. 113 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar7.CEA No. 114 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd.8.CEA No. 115 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar9.CEA No. 116 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta10.CEA No. 117 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Sushanta Banerjee11.CEA No. 118 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Sushanta Banerjee12.CEA No. 119 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Rakesh Goyal13.CEA No. 120 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd.14.CEA No. 121 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Northern India Steel Rolling Mills15.CEA No. 122 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Nirmal Kumar Agarwal16.CEA No. 123 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Vishal & Company17.CEA No. 124 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Rajinder Singla18.CEA No. 125 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Adhunik Steels Ltd.19.CEA No. 126 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Raj Kumar Goyal20.CEA No. 127 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Nav Rakesh Steel Corporation21CEA No. 128 of 2008Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. M/s Krishna Alloys Pvt. Ltd.