- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is directed against the order dated 30.3.2007 passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi.
(2.) THIS Court admitted the appeal by the order dated 12.8.2008 and the substantial question of law was framed. The order dated 12.8.2008 is reproduced as under: "It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order on the basis of another judgment of Tribunal dated 09.2.2007 in CCE, Rohtak Vs. Indo Dane Textile Industries and Others being Central Excise Appeal NO. 288-293/2007 wherein appeal has been filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which has already been admitted, and the same is pending. In that view of the matter, this appeal is also admitted by framing following substantial question of law:- "Whether the assessee is entitled to claim Cenvat credit notwithstanding the fact that admittedly goods have been exported without submitting requisite bond and/or without submitting the required letter of undertaking, and thus not fulfilling the requirement of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, or Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules?. Mr. Mehta appears for the respondent. As such, notice need not be issued." learned counsel for both the parties submitted that appeal was admitted by this Court and the appeal filed on behalf of the Revenue was pending against the judgment of Tribunal. Now the High Court of Punjab & Harayana dismissed the appeal preferred on behalf of the Revenue by the order dated 12.10.2007 and the said judgment is reportable in 2012 (275) E.L.T. 189 (Punjab & Harayana High Court). Therefore, learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the point involved in the present case is now resolved by Division Bench of Punjab & Harayana High Court while rejecting the appeal of the Revenue.
(3.) Learned counsel for Revenue fairly and frankly admitted that the department has accepted the judgment of Punjab & Harayana High Court as no SLP has been preferred against the said judgment.;