$~R-2 & 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CEAC 4/2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R. Ramachandran, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus M/S NAV BHARAT IMPEX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Oberoi, Adv.

13 + W.P.(C) 6992/2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr.

Dipak Raj, Adv.

versus UOI & ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohit Oberoi, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R

% 07.02.2026

1. It appears that both these matters are clubbed together perhaps having regard to the identical issue involved therein.

2. Alleging that the respondents were not entitled to avail Central Value Added Tax (‘CENVAT’) Credit under Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 a Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) was flashed on the respondent which lead to the passing of Order-in-Original on 28^th April 2006.

3. It appears vide the Order-in-Original the penalty was imposed on the respondent by observing that the respondents have availed CENVAT Credit illegally.

4. The said order was subject matter of challenge in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. The Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to dismiss the appeal vide its order dated 23^rd May 2006 leading to filing of the revision by the respondent.

6. Since part of the order went in favour of the respondent as the Commissioner (Appeals) observe that the respondents were entitled to the rebates claimed, the revision was preferred by the appellant.

7. The challenge in the writ petition is to the CESTAT Order dated 27^th August 2008 wherein setting aside of the same is sought with further request to modify the Order-In-Original referred above dated 28^th April 2006.

8. The issue in the petition involves whether a particular job entrusted to the petitioner involves the process of manufacturing or not.

9. The counsel for the respondent states that the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the similar issues in the matter of Civil Application No.788-790/2022, “Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur v. Jindal Drugs Ltd.”. According to him, the Apex Court had delivered a judgment on 30^th April 2024 which in his opinion covers the issue which is sought to be canvassed by the appellant.

10. That being so, we permit the respondent to circulate the aforesaid judgment within a period of one week from today.

11. We permit the appellant to go through the same and address the issue involved herein.

12. Both the parties are permitted to file their written submissions within a period of one week from today. 13. List on 21^st February 2026.

14. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J AJAY DIGPAUL, J FEBRUARY 7, 2026/sky/ok