Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. These are two appeals which have been filed by the revenue against one consolidated order dated 26-3-2007 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 91-94/C.E./Chd/2005 dated 10-3-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise set aside the penalties imposed upon the dealers/assessees by the adjudicating Authority. Since the issue involved in the appeals filed by the revenue is inter-related and arises from the same common order of the Tribunal, both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The facts of the case, common in both the appeals, are that the respondents are registered dealers with the revenue-Department and they are receiving duty paid raw material which is being supplied to various manufacturers. Undisputedly, the payments for the purchase of the inputs have been made by the respondents through cheque/demand draft. It is also not disputed that the inputs in question have been used in the manufacture of final products, which have been cleared on payment of duty. The respondents are availing Cenvat/Modvat credit under the provisions of the Act. 3. On an information received to the effect that the respondents are showing use of fictitious vehicles for transportation of raw material for fraudulently passing of Modvat/Cenvat credit, the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise Division, Mandi Gobindgarh visited the premises of the respondents. After verification, it was found that in respect of a large number of invoices/transactions, sales of raw material shown by the respondents were transported on vehicles bearing registration Nos. of scooters, motor-cycles, mopeds, combines, jeeps, sprinklers, tractors etc. (hereinafter referred to as improper vehicles) which were mostly LTVs or were otherwise incapable of transporting the huge quantities of Iron and Steel items mentioned in the concerned invoices and in some cases the vehicle numbers as mentioned on the invoices had not even been issued by the concerned Transport Authority indicating that material under these invoices/transactions had actually not been transported/ transferred and these transactions appeared to be mere fraudulent paper transactions to facilitate the buyers to avail of inadmissible Modvat/Cenvat credit. 4. 4. The respondents appeared before the Adjudicating Authority in response to the show cause notices and submitted reply as under : (1) There is no evidence with the Department that the raw material has been directed to some other destination, instead of being transported to the manufacturers factory/premises. (2) The payments were made through cheques/demand drafts. (3) Inputs in question have been used in the manufacture of final products which have been cleared on payment of duty. (4) The RT-12 returns have been assessed finally by the Range Officer, which contains all the documents including (the invoices under dispute) on the basis of which the Modvat credit has been availed and utilised. (5) The respondents had not played any role in the wrong mentioning of wrong vehicle numbers and the Modvat credit was passed rightly. The Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 21-12-2004 held that the charges levelled in the show cause notice stands established against the respondents who in connivance with one another, defrauded the Government of its legitimate revenue and imposed the penalty on the respondents. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Adjudicating Authority the respondents filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 10-3-2005 accepted the appeals and set aside the penalties against the respondents. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department further filed appeals before the Tribunal challenging the said order. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26-3-2007, dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. 7. Still not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the revenue has filed the instant appeals before this Court seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law : - (i When it has been proved in the investigation through incontrovertible evidence that vehicle nos. are fictitious and are not capable of loading huge quantity, can Honble Tribunal overlook and ignore the evidence collected through investigation and brought on record? (ii Whether Tribunal is empowered to set aside the facts which have been proved in the investigation? 8. We have heard Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the revenue-appellant. However, we find no force in the contentions raised by him. This Court has already dismissed CEA. Nos. 14 to 19 of 2008 filed by the revenue on similar facts. 9. (ii Whether Tribunal is empowered to set aside the facts which have been proved in the investigation? 8. We have heard Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the revenue-appellant. However, we find no force in the contentions raised by him. This Court has already dismissed CEA. Nos. 14 to 19 of 2008 filed by the revenue on similar facts. 9. In view of the above factual position, there is no merit in both the appeals as no question of law, much less substantial, arises from the order of the Tribunal wherein pure findings of fact have been recorded in favour of the respondents. 10. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.