JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.— The appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Bangalore, under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [for short the Act'] against the final order No. 1296 of 2008 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT'] South Zonal Bench, Bangalore passed on 20.11.2008 in Appeal No. E/587/2008. 2. Under the impugned order, the appellate tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the revenue and affirmed the order in Appeal No. 77 of 2008 passed by the first appellate authority - the Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals] which had been passed on 28.4.2008. 3. The appeal before the first appellate authority itself was by the assessee disputing the reversal of the central value added tax [for short 'CENVAT'] credit of duty to an extent of Rs. 68,052/- availed of by the assessee in respect of the following four invoices. Date of issue of Invoice IOC Invoice No. Cenvat credit disallowed [Rs.] 11.10.04 604081790 25594 6.12.04 604858383 24229 24.1.05 605574712 17921 30.3.05 606547405 17921 68,052 4. In respect of this period, the assessee had originally claimed CENVAT credit totaling an amount of Rs. 86,607/-. The adjudicating authority found that the assessee had availed of excess credit to the extent of Rs. 14,399/- as on verification it was found that the supplier of the inputs to the assessee had, in fact, paid duty only for a sum of Rs. 72,222/- in respect of the goods received by the assessee. However, the adjudicating authority disallowed a sum of Rs. 68,052/- from out of a sum of Rs. 72,222/- for the reason that the supplier to the assessee did not have registration in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and in terms of Sub-rule [2] of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, [for short the rules'] a credit availed of as duty paid by an unregistered dealer is not allowed as CENVAT credit and therefore a sum of Rs. 68,052/- was disallowed. 5. The assessee appealed to the first appellate authority ~ the Commissioner of Appeals. 68,052/- was disallowed. 5. The assessee appealed to the first appellate authority ~ the Commissioner of Appeals. The appellate authority found that while the duty, in fact, had been paid by the manufacturer who otherwise was availing the benefit of a circular deferring payment of duty to the clearances at a bonded warehouse which facility had been discontinued with effect from 6.9.2004 and the clearances being subsequent to 6.9.2004, the manufacturer could have cleared only on payment of duty and therefore the assessee was entitled to claim CENVAT credit and therefore allowed the appeal of the assessee and also scaled down the penalty proportionately restricting the penalty proportionate to a sum of Rs. 14,399/- excess credit which had been availed of by the assessee. 6. The revenue had appealed before the Tribunal but without much success as the Tribunal purporting to follow the division Bench decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Vimal Enterprise and 2 Ors. Vs. The Union of India (UOI) thro' the Secretary and 3 Ors., (2005) 103 ECC 66], dismissed the appeal being of the view that the transaction going through a reputed public sector undertaking like the IOCL, goods supplied by them would have necessarily suffered duty and in this view of the matter did not find occasion to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. 7. Against this order, the present appeal. 8. We have heard Sri. Pramod, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing on behalf of the appellant. 9. Mr. Pramod, learned Junior standing Counsel would submit that the tribunal has committed an error in overlooking the requirement of Sub-rule [2] of Rule 9 of the Rules; that if the manufacturer, otherwise did not have the benefit of registration under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the supply of certain goods, an assessee who has purchased such inputs, nevertheless, claims CENVAT credit is not entitled to; that the tribunal as well as the appellate commissioner could not have overlooked the requirement" of Rule 9[2] of the rules. 10. We have bestowed attention to the submissions made at the Bar and the grounds raised in the appeal. 11. 10. We have bestowed attention to the submissions made at the Bar and the grounds raised in the appeal. 11. While learned Counsel for the appellant is correct in the submission that requirement of Sub-rule [1] of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 should be necessarily complied and an embargo occurs under Sub-rule [2] of Rule 9 of the rules for claiming such CENVAT credit who has not complied with the requirement of Sub-rule [1] of Rule 9 of the rules, in the present case and as indicated by the appellate commissioner and by the Tribunal, the authorities having found as a matter of fact that in respect of the value of the goods amounting to Rs. 68,052/- the duty, in fact, had been paid at one point or the other and such duty paid goods constitute an input in respect of which assessee had availed of CENVAT credit, that in our opinion, is substantial compliance of the requirement and does not involve a question of law of general importance either for the assessee or for other assessees and for different periods, as in the peculiar circumstances of particular facts of the assesses for the relevant period, the question is answered by the appellate commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal and therefore we do not find this to be a fit case to be admitted for examination within the scope of Section 35G of the Act. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.