IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No. 86 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 3, 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana …Appellant Versus M/s Modi Sales, Hero Nagar, G.T. Road, Ludhiana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Senior Panel Counsel Union of India, for the appellant. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) challenges order dated 14.7.2008 (P-3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). At the outset Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, learned counsel for the dealer-respondent states that the issue raised in the instant appeal stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise CEA No. 86 of 2009 Commissionerate, Jalandhar v. M/s Kapson Industries Ltd., Jalandhar (CEA No. 87 of 2008, decided on 28.11.2008). The Division Bench of this Court has held that simultaneous manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods out of the common modvatted/cenvatted inputs is the first and foremost condition for demanding the amount for the contraventions of Rule 57CC and Rule 57AD of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the 1944 Rules’) or Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002 (for brevity, ‘2001/2002 Rules’). It is on the satisfaction of the aforesaid condition such an amount could be demanded or recovered from the dealer-respondent. The dealer-respondent admittedly has manufactured excisable goods on job work basis out of the cenvatted inputs or partially processed inputs supplied by the principal raw material suppliers. The aforesaid goods were not found to be exempted goods but dutiable/excisable goods. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 57CC and 57AD of the 1944 Rules or Rule 6(3) of the 2001/2002 Rules would not be applicable. The aforesaid proposition has not been seriously disputed nor controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 CEA No. 86 of 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) December 3, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3