ORDER 1. Present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is filed by the Revenue against the final order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (for short, ’CESTAT’) Principal Bench, West Block No. 2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110066, which was filed against the order in Original No. ALW-EXCIS-000-COM-029-17-18 dated 22.12.2017, passed by the Commissioner of the Central Excise and Service Tax, Alwar. 2. Present appeal is filed on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether CENVAT Credit can be allowed to the downstream unit i.e. assessee, as amount excess paid by the supplier of goods cannot be termed as duty under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? and; 2. Any other question of law as the Hon’ble Court may formulate in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the Revenue that on 21.09.2014, for the period from September, 2012 to July, 2015, a show cause notice was issued for wrongly availing and utilizing CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 3,01,32,736/- in contravention of provisions of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (for short, ’Rules of 2004’) which were demanded under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2004 read with Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 under the extended period of limitation on the grounds of evasion of central excise duty on suppression, concealment and misleading, referred to in Para 10 of the show cause notice. 4. It was submitted by the standing counsel thatmanufacturing unit of M/s Tata BlueScope Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, is engaged in manufacturing of profile sheets which is one of the raw material for the manufacturing of items by the respondent, who is registered at RIICO Industrial Area, Chopanki, Bhiwadi, Alwar (Rajasthan) and is a downstream unit. It was further submitted that Central Excise duty paid on the inputs by Jamshedpur unit was availed as CENVAT Credit by the respondent. The allegation of revenue is that the Jamshedpur unit paid Central Excise duty in excess of what they were required to pay and such excess excise duty paid was wrongly availed as CENVAT Credit by the respondent unit and therefore, the present show cause notice was issued. The allegation of revenue is that the Jamshedpur unit paid Central Excise duty in excess of what they were required to pay and such excess excise duty paid was wrongly availed as CENVAT Credit by the respondent unit and therefore, the present show cause notice was issued. The excess duty payment was paid by Jamshedpur unit by including the value of outward transportation of the inputs from Jamshedpur unit to Bhiwadi unit. In terms of the Circular dated 14.01.2011 issued by CBEC, it has been clarified that if an assessee pays excess duty on exempted goods, the same is not allowed as the same cannot be termed as ’duty of excise’ under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2004. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned CESTAT has wrongly placed reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of CCE Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. reported in (2008) 17 SCC 71 and the tribunal order in the case of Cipla Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2011 (273) ELT 391 (Tri.-Mumbai). The ratio recorded in para 8 of the impugned order was never ordered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. He submitted that in the light of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2004, Circular dated 14.01.2011 and wrong reference drawn on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by learned CESTAT should be set aside and the appeal be admitted on the framed substantial question of law. 7. We have analyzed memo of appeal, submissions made by the revenue counsel and the judgment cited at Bar. The issue in the present show cause notice is found on the basis of irregular availment of CENVAT Credit by the respondent on the premise that respondent has availed CENVAT Credit on the exempted/abated portion of the assessable value wherein duty was not required to be paid by manufacturing unit. In terms of revenue circular dated 14.01.2011, the same is not duty of excise. 8. On perusal of the order of learned CESTAT, it is beyond doubt that the respondent has paid duty of Central Excise under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2004, to the supplier, who has deposited the same with department of Revenue. In terms of revenue circular dated 14.01.2011, the same is not duty of excise. 8. On perusal of the order of learned CESTAT, it is beyond doubt that the respondent has paid duty of Central Excise under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2004, to the supplier, who has deposited the same with department of Revenue. On perusal of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2004, it is apparently clear that the manufacturer of final products shall be allowed to take credit of various duties of excise ’paid on any inputs’. Once the supplier of the inputs has charged and deposited the duty of invoice, the purchaser (in the present case, the respondent) is entitled for taking the credit. The fact of payment of duty, issuance of invoice (duty paid document) is not in dispute. Consequently, the learned CESTAT passed the impugned order dated 21.02.2019, in terms of Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of MDS Switchgear Ltd (supra), the relevant part of which is reiterated below:- "7. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that in fact there was no loss of revenue. It accepted the appeal by recording the following reasons; Reasons given by the appellants for the alleged inflation of the value of the intermediate goods are logical. What was required of the Commissioner was to examine the quantum of the loading of the assessable value by the modvat credit on the earlier inputs. The exercise has nowhere been done. If the department was of the opinion that the value of the final product was depressed, then they could have charged the Jalgaon unit with under-invoicing of their product. That has also not been done. The valuation as given by the Sinnar unit was duly approved by the department and the payment of duty was also duly accepted. We find absolutely no substance in the attempt of the learned Commissioner to convert a part of the duty so paid into ’deposit of duty’. There is no legal basis for such presumption. The rule entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit 2000 (38) RLT 179." 9. There is no legal basis for such presumption. The rule entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit 2000 (38) RLT 179." 9. On perusal of findings of Hon’ble Apex Court, the following point emerge which is directly applicable on the case in hand. Once the department has accepted/approved the charging of excess duty at the end of Jamshedpur unit, they cannot open assessment at the end of the recipient (in the present case, the respondent). The respondent, in the present case, has paid duty and the supplier/upstream unit has deposited the same with the revenue/department. There is no loss to the revenue and therefore, dis-entitling the respondent to claim it as credit is de-hors Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules and therefore, the judgment of MDS Switchgear Ltd (supra) relied upon by the Tribunal is absolutely correct. 10. Reliance placed upon the circular dated 14.01.2011, cannot be accepted as the same cannot over-ride the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2004 and the ratio of judgment referred supra. It can very well be added that if the circular is considered valid and the said Central Excise duty is held as ’not duty of excise’, then in terms of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, nothing can be collected by the revenue without authority of law. 11. Lastly, it is also analyzed that the revenue has not contested and formulated any substantial question of law on the issue of limitation, under the extended period as was raised in the show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued in the year 2017, the period in dispute was of 2012 to 2015 and therefore, the setting aside of penalty and not raising any ground qua the applicability of extended period and of suppression, not contested by the revenue, makes the formulated question of law of academic importance only. 12. For the reasons so made, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal by placing reliance upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. 12. For the reasons so made, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal by placing reliance upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping & Allied Duties and Ors.: 2017 (349) E.L.T 193 (SC), wherein the question of admission of an appeal on substantial question of law was considered and it was held as under:- "(i) The question raised must involve a substantial question of law which has not been answered or, on which, there is a conflict of decisions necessitating a resolution. (ii) If the Tribunal, on consideration of the material and relevant facts, had arrived at a conclusion which is a possible conclusion, the same must be allowed to rest even if this Court is inclined to take another view of the matter. (iii) The Tribunal had acted in gross violation of the procedure or principles of natural justice occasioning a failure of justice." 13. We are of the view that learned CESTAT has passed a well reasoned order and after considering material and relevant facts arrived at a logical conclusion and the same must be allowed to rest. There is no gross violation of principles of natural justice or failure of justice and no error has crept in the order of learned CESTAT. 14. In the light of above discussions, the present appeal under Section 35G of the Act does not call for interference and is hereby dismissed as no substantial question of law arises worth consideration.