IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.E.A. No. 21 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: March 25, 2009 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh …Appellant Versus M/s Vardhman Industries Ltd. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated 4.7.2008, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in Central Excise Appeal No. 3725-3726/2006-SM (BR). The Tribunal has noticed that the refund claims of the respondent in their own case on similar issue for different period stand accepted and the appeal filed by the revenue has been rejected by this Court. In that regard, reference has been made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Vardhman Industries Ltd., 2006 (202) E.L.T. 765 C.E.A. No. 21 of 2009 (P&H). The question raised in the Vardhman’s case (supra) was whether the duty which has not been passed on to the customers and findings to that effect have been recorded by all the authorities including the Tribunal would give rise to a question of law or would be a purely question of fact. This Court has dismissed the appeal of the revenue upholding the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as revenue authorities. In view of the above, no case is made out warranting admission of the instant appeal because no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) March 25, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2