Retrospective excise exemption for copper wire rods defeated the levy for the disputed period and left refund or adjustment to the department.

Copper wire rods manufactured from copper wire bars were treated as exempt from excise duty for the relevant period because a retrospective notification under Section 11C clarified that no excise duty or special excise duty was leviable. The earlier levy could not survive in view of that clarification, and the amounts deposited under the interim order were left for the departmental authority to refund or adjust according to law. The impugned demand was therefore unsustainable for the period covered by the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were liable to pay excise duty on copper wire rods manufactured from copper wire bars and whether the amounts already deposited were liable to refund or adjustment in view of the retrospective exemption notification.

Analysis: The petitioners claimed exemption at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 119/66 dated 16-7-1966, as amended, and had sought proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules. A subsequent notification issued under Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 clarified that no excise duty or special excise duty was leviable on copper wire rods manufactured out of copper wire bars for the relevant period, which covered the period in dispute. On that basis, the earlier levy could not survive, and any amount deposited pursuant to the interim order was liable to be dealt with by the departmental authority in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to relief, and the impugned levy was treated as unsustainable for the relevant period; refund or adjustment was left to be considered by the competent authority according to law.

---