IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CEA No. 92 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.8.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh ....Appellant. Versus M/s Subhkarman Steel Rolling Mills, Khanna ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of CEA Nos. 92 to 95 of 2010 as all the appeals raise common question of law. 2. CEA No. 92 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 5.9.2006 (Annexure A-2) passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal proposing to raise the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Octroi receipts containing details of vehicle No., description and quantity of goods issued by the State Revenue Authority, authenticating removal of goods CEA No. 92 of 2010 -2- but without consignor's name & address and his bill No., do not constitute sufficient evidence for holding that the goods covered under the octroi receipts were not received by the parties enabling them to take Cenvat Credit fraudulently?” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that the Tribunal has followed its earlier order which has since been affirmed by this Court in CEA No. 47 of 2009 decided on 8.7.2009 titled Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s Swastik Steel Works. 4. In view of the above, these appeals are dismissed. 5. A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 11, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE