Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to Cenvat credit on duty paid on wires received from wire manufacturers during the relevant period, and whether the matter required verification of refund of duty by the wire manufacturers.
Analysis: The relevant period fell within the scope of the retrospective amendment to Rule 16(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, by which wire drawing units were treated as assessees for the specified period and the amount paid on clearance of drawn wire was to be treated as duty eligible for credit to the buyer. The notification issued under Section 5B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied only to wires drawn from wire rods falling under Chapter 72, and did not cover all categories of wire involved. The Board circular also clarified that the amendment regularised credit at the input stage, the drawn-wire stage, and the downstream buyer stage for the specified period. At the same time, eligibility of the respondent depended on whether the wire manufacturers had obtained refund of the duty paid, because credit would not be available if such refund had been taken.
Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to Cenvat credit for the relevant period in principle, but the matter had to be remanded for de novo adjudication to verify whether any refund had been claimed or taken by the wire manufacturers.