ORDER M.S. Sanklecha, J. - This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 19-6-2006 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). 2. This appeal was admitted on 20-6-2008 on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing the Modvat credit on the part and components on sugar machinery which were neither assessee''s capital goods used for manufacture of their final products nor inputs used in any way by them for the manufacture of capital goods?" 3. With the consent of the parties, the above substantial question of law has been reframed to bring out the exact nature of the dispute as under :- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal justified in allowing Cenvat credit on the machines/equipments of a sugar plant?" 4. Mr. Kantharia, Learned Counsel in support of the appeal, very fairly states that, the substantial question of law as arising in this appeal, is identical to one which was raised in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. M/s. Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. (Central Excise Appeal No. 134 of 2007). Today, we have dismissed the above appeal of the Revenue. 5. Mr. Kantharia, Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the decision in the above case would equally apply to the facts of the present case. 6. In the above view, for the reasons indicated in Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (supra), the substantial question of law raised herein is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the appellant-Revenue. 7. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.