Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The revenue has approached this Court by invoking Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, the Act), challenging final order dated 19-3-2008, passed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, the Tribunal). It has claimed that the following substantial question of law would arise for determination of this Court. Whether CENVAT credit is admissible on the inputs where activities undertaken by the supplier of inputs did not amount to manufacture in view of facts mentioned in appeal 2. In order to put the controversy in its proper perspective, the facts in brief as disclosed in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent M/s. Neel Metal Products Ltd. are engaged in manufacture of excise goods, namely, sheet metal components and blanks etc. falling under Chapter Heading No. 7318 and 7211 of the first schedule appended to the Act. They are registered manufacturer under the Central Excise and had taken Cenvat credit of Rs. 30,70,388/- in respect of the period 2-3-2005 to 24-3-2005 (Central Excise Duty of Rs. 30,10,184/- and Education Cess of Rs. 60,204/-) on CR/HR/SS Copils/Strips. 3. The Cenvat credit was claimed on the basis of invoices of supplier. The revenue alleged that the activities of the supplier M/s. Allied Metal Technologies, Faridabad, did not amount to manufacture as per circular dated 2-3-2005, issued by the Department. A show cause notice was slapped on the respondent on 29-8-2005 in respect of inputs received by them from supplier M/s. Allied Metal Technologies for denying the benefit of Cenvat credit in view of circular dated 2-3-2005. It was also stated in the notice as to why recovery under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (for brevity, the Rules) read with Section 11A of the Act be not made. Even the interest was sought to be recovered by invoking Section 11AB of the Act along with penalty under Rule 13(1) of the Rules. 4. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise while adjudicating the case, vide order-in-original, dated 31-1- 2006 accepted the plea of the Department and disallowed the Cenvat credit and confirmed its demand under Rule 12 of the Rules read with Section 11A of the Act along with interest under Section 11AB of the Act and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Rule 13(1) of the Rules (A-1). 5. 10,00,000/- under Rule 13(1) of the Rules (A-1). 5. On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise upheld the order-in-original, vide his order dated 15-12-2006 (A-2). An appeal before the Tribunal was filed vide its final order dated 19-3-2008, the Tribunal has set aside order dated 15-12-2006 by sustaining the argument of the respondent-assessee that the supplier of inputs paid duty and that supplier of inputs was not a party to the proceedings. In that regard, the Tribunal has placed reliance on a judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sarvesh Refractories Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE , 2007 (218) E.L.T. 488 in its order dated 19-3-2008 (A-3). The operative part of the order reads thus :- 4. We find that prior to 2-3-05, the processes undertaken by the supplier of inputs are treated as manufacture of goods. Only w.e.f. 2-3-05 the same process as per Boards circular does not amount to manufacture. The supplier of inputs paid duty which is not in dispute. The supplier of inputs is not a party to the present proceedings. The revenue denied the benefit of credit taken by the recipient of inputs. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. (supra) [Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs , 2007 (218) E.L.T. 488 (S.C.)] held that the appellant-assessee as consumer cannot get classification changed under which goods were cleared by the manufacturer. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the contention of the appellant. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has argued that the supplier of the assessee did not indulge in any manufacturing activity and, therefore, no Cenvat credit could have been claimed on the basis of those invoices by the assessee-respondent. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the goods supplied to the assessee were covered under Chapter Heading No. 7318 and 7211 of the first schedule appended to the Act. The assessee could not have got the classification of the goods changed. The fact that the duty was paid on those inputs is evident from the invoices indicating the payment of duty for which credit has been taken. It appears that the goods were manufactured prior to 2-3-2005 and the circular dated 2-3-2005 was not to apply in any case. The assessee could not have got the classification of the goods changed. The fact that the duty was paid on those inputs is evident from the invoices indicating the payment of duty for which credit has been taken. It appears that the goods were manufactured prior to 2-3-2005 and the circular dated 2-3-2005 was not to apply in any case. The view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting admission of the appeal because no question of law would arise. The matter seems to be covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. (supra). There is, thus no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.