Wire drawing treated as manufacture during the relevant period, supporting Cenvat credit on inputs used in the process.

Wire drawing from wire rods was treated as manufacture for the relevant period because the binding departmental circular in force then classified it that way. That circular could not be disregarded by lower authorities when determining eligibility to Cenvat credit, and its later withdrawal did not change the legal position for the material period. A subsequent retrospective amendment also supported credit on drawn wire cleared on payment of duty during the specified period. On that basis, Cenvat credit on inputs used in the process was available to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the process of drawing wire from wire rods during the relevant period amounted to manufacture, and whether the assessee was entitled to Cenvat credit on inputs used in that process.

Analysis: The relevant period fell within the time when the Board's circular treated wire drawing as manufacture. A circular binding on the lower authorities could not be ignored while determining eligibility to credit. The later withdrawal of the circular did not alter the position for the material period. The retrospective amendment also supported the entitlement by recognising credit in respect of drawn wire cleared on payment of duty during the specified period.

Conclusion: The process was treated as manufacture for the material period and the assessee was entitled to Cenvat credit on the inputs. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A binding departmental circular in force during the relevant period, read with a subsequent retrospective validating amendment, entitles the assessee to Cenvat credit where the process was treated as manufacture at that time.

---