IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

212 Reserved on: January 08, 2025 Pronounced on: January 28, 2025 M/S YEE KAY TECHNOCRAT PRIVATE LIMITED .....APPELLANT Versus COMMISSIONER, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COMMISSIONERATE, FARIDABAD .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepesh Kakkar, Advocate for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘Act 1944’) for quashing impugned order dated 25.01.2011 (Annexure A-3), whereby, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant holding that the appellant is not entitled to benefit of CENVAT Credit.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per Order-in-Original, are that the appellant is the manufacturer of Engineering Plastic Components and was availing facility of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules; 2002/2004.

3. During the course of audit of the financial and excise records of the assessees, it was noticed by the Audit party, that the assessees had availed of CENVAT Credit amountin