1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2005. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I, Mumbai. ..Appellant. v/s. M/s.Steel Rolling Mills of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2005. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I, Mumbai. ..Appellant. v/s. M/s. Metro Steel Rolling Mills. ..Respondent. WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2005. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I, Mumbai. ..Appellant. v/s. M/s. Konark Containers & Allied Inds. P. Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. A.S. Rao, a/w. Mr. S.I. Shah, for Appellant, in all Appeals. Mr. Prakash Shah, i/b. PDS Legal, for Respondent, in CEXA No.59 of 2005. .... CORAM : V.C. DAGA & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE 2010. P.C. All these Appeals were admitted by an order dated 2 16th January 2006, to consider following substantial questions of law :- “(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in treating the clearly recognizable non duty material as duty paid and in allowing the exemption under the said Notification ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in interpreting the word “Such Authority” in section 35E(2) of the Act as “Adjudicating Authority” only and not any other authority subordinate to the Commissioner ? 2. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The Advocates appearing for the parties agree that the second question is squarely covered by the order of this Court in the case of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise vs. Silver Streak Welding Products India Pvt. Ltd., 2008 (226) ELT 704 (Bom.). The view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the said order. The question no.2 is thus, answered in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. 3. Having affirmed view of the Tribunal on the above second question, the first question would not survive. In the result, all these Appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ] [V.C. DAGA, J.]