IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.E.A. No.30 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.7.2011 Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana. -----Appellant Vs. M/s Varun Fabs Ltd. & others. -----Respondents & connected cases being CEA Nos.31 to 38 of 2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This order will dispose of CEA Nos.30 to 38 of 2011 as all the appeals involve common question. 2. CEA No.30 of 2011 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 11.5.2010, Annexure A-3, proposing to raise following question of law:- C.E.A. No.30 of 2011 “Whether Tribunal is justified in setting aside the penalties on the ground of interpretation when the issue already stands elucidated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India?” 3. The respondent-assessee availed exemption from duty under notification No.14/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002. The said exemption is available if the duty had been paid on inputs. If there is exemption from duty on the inputs, the benefit of notification dated 1.3.2002 is not available. Since the assesseee had taken benefit, even though the notification was not applicable, vide order-in- original dated 30.5.2005, the adjudicating authority issue Show Cause Notice requiring the assessee to show cause why demand of duty be not raised and penalty imposed. However, after considering the stand of the assessee, it dropped proceedings against the assessee. The revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the plea of the revenue that the exemption notification was not applicable. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal ought to have levied penalty once it was found that the exemption notification was not applicable. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. From the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that only point which had been raised and considered is about applicability of the notification dated 1.3.2002. There is no plea of penalty raised or considered in the 2 C.E.A. No.30 of 2011 said order. In this view of the matter, the question raised does not arise from the impugned order and cannot be held to be substantial question of law. The appeals are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE July 11, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 3