https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45293 Whether irrigation sprinkling equipment qualified for excise duty exemption under the relevant notifications was governed by the CBEC circular clarifying that "agricultural implements" include agricultural mechanical appliances/machinery and are covered by the exemption. Since departmental authorities are bound by such circulars issued under s. 37B of the Central Excise Act, the exemption claim ought to have been allowed; the assessee's claim was upheld and the appeal allowed. The revenue's objection that the amount deposited was a stay-condition payment rather than refundable duty was rejected for lack of basis, and consequential refund relief followed. en-us Wed, 31 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 23:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45293 Whether irrigation sprinkling equipment qualified for excise duty exemption under the relevant notifications was governed by the CBEC circular clarifying that "agricultural implements" include agricultural mechanical appliances/machinery and are covered by the exemption. Since departmental authorities are bound by such circulars issued under s. 37B of the Central Excise Act, the exemption claim ought to have been allowed; the assessee's claim was upheld and the appeal allowed. The revenue's objection that the amount deposited was a stay-condition payment rather than refundable duty was rejected for lack of basis, and consequential refund relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45293