C.E.A. No. 86 of 2008 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Central Excise Appeal No. 86 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.8.2008 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. ... Appellant. v. M/s R.H. Industries, C-28, Phase II, Industrial Area, Mohali. ... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the Final Order No. 315-316/2008-SM (BR) dated 4.12.2007, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi raising the following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether the manufacturer of final product is entitled to deemed credit, under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997, when the manufacturer of inputs has not paid Central Excise Duty and given a wrong certificate on the body of invoices about discharge of duty under Rule 96 ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ? (b) Whether the provisions contained in paras 4 and 5 of the Notification No. 58/97-CE are of no significance or have to be read in continuity with the preceding paras of the Notification ?” We find that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Vikas Pipes v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh-II, 2003 (158) ELT 680, which has been followed in C.E.A. No. 51 of 2004-- Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana v. M/s Plasto Power Engineers, Sangrur, decided on 28.8.2006 C.E.A. No. 86 of 2008 [ 2] and C.E.A. No. 120 of 2006 –Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s R.B. Forgings (P) Ltd., decided on 15.1.2007. For the reasons stated in Vikas Pipes' case (supra), we do not find that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Hemant Gupta) Judge 19.8.2008 mk