1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Central Excise. ...Applicant vs. M/s.Precision Photo Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent. --- Mr.P.S.Jetly with Y.S.Bathe & A.S.Rao with Y.R.Mishra, for Applicant. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 21st October,2008. P.C.:- 1. This application was admitted on 9.6.2005 on the following questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in applying its decision in the case of Garg Industries 1996(86) ELT 495(T) 2 wherein it has been held (a)”It is well settled that it is entirely the option of the assessee either to avail exemption or to pay duty at normal rate and avail modvat credit if admissible”. (b) and wherein it had altered the expression in Rule 57C and whether the embargo laid down by this rule is absolute and categorical. (c) and wherein it had been held that the provisions of explanatory notes appended to the Finance Bill '94 will apply to unregistered units also. (d) And wherein it had been held that the accumulated modvat credit in RG23A Pt-II in case of unregistered unit will be treated as not having lapsed in terms of Notfn.No.1/93. 2. Whether the impugned Final order No.CIII/223/02/WZB dtd. 22.11.02 is legally correct and proper in terms of A.P. High Court's order in case of M/s.Ganesh Metal Processing Ind. Vs. U.O.I. Appearing in the 1995(57) ECR 252(AP).” The learned Counsel appearing for applicant fairly states that similar questions raised by the revenue in the case “The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V Vs. M/s.Shefjo Plastics” in Central Excise 3 Appeal no.16 of 2004 has been dismissed on 29.9.2005. In this view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by calling for a statement of the case. Hence, the application is dismissed. Rule Discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)