IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.E.A. No.156 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.11.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Syschem (India) Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 20.10.2009 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “1. Despite the specific findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), whether directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal in remanding the matter again to Commissioner (Appeals) and setting aside Orders of Commissioner (Appeals) with direction to consider cases cited by the notice/party is correct. C.E.A. No.156 of 2010 2. The Tribunal’s Final Order No.1264-1265/2009 EX(DB) dated 20.10.2009 is not legal and proper especially with respect to directions in para 6.2 and 6.3 and therefore, the Tribunal’s orders need to be set aside and the Order-in- Appeal No.362-363/GRM/PCK/2005 dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Delhi-III, Gurgaon needs to be upheld.” 2. The adjudicating authority allowed Cenvat Credit to the assessee on the inputs in job work of goods which were further processed and cleared. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said order on appeal by the revenue, without conducting inquiry into the evidence of the assessee in support of claim for Cenvat Credit. On further appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal held that inquiry was required to be conducted into the following:- a) Whether the appellants have reversed the Cenvat Credit taken on the inputs which have gone into the manufacturer of job work goods cleared at nil rate of duty under Notification No.214/86-CE to the principal manufacturers and whether the Appellants are required to reverse this credit at all and b) Whether the appellants are liable to pay, in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, an amount equal to 8% of the value of the job work goods cleared at nil rate of duty to the principal manufacturer.” 2 C.E.A. No.156 of 2010 3. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Since the matter has only been remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for considering the evidence of the assessee in support of claim for Cenvat Credit, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises at this stage. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 01, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) ashwani JUDGE 3