- (1.) This order will dispose of C.E.A Nos. 9, 10 and 86 of 2005, as similar question of law is involved therein. However, the facts are being taken from C.E.A. No. 9 of 2005.
(2.) The revenue has approached this court by filing the present appeal against the order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'The Tribunal'), arising out of Appeal No. E/1078/2004-NB-B, dated June 9, 2004, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in giving an interpretation to Rule 57F(4) which is not intended? (ii) Whether it is legal to give credit of amount paid when it was not required to be paid by virtue of Notification No. 214/86-CX, dated 25- 3-1986.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the assessee sent certain goods for job work. As per notification, the job worker was exempted from payment of duty. However, still he paid the duty and the assessee had availed Modvat credit thereof on account of payment of such duty by the job worker, claim of which was disallowed by the Commissioner which order was reversed by the Tribunal. It is not disputed that duty, the Modvat credit of which was availed of by the respondent was paid by the job worker even though not required to pay. The respondent has taken the credit of duty, which was actually paid. We do not dilate much on the issue as this court has earlier dismissed an appeal filed by the revenue raising the similar question of law in C.E.A No. 51 of 2005 titled as Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh v. Punjab Anand Lamp Industries Ltd., Mohali, decided on 4-7-2006.;