Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Himachal Wire Industries (P) Ltd.

Commr. of C. Ex. vs Himachal Wire Industries (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 11, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38421

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commr. of C. Ex.

Respondent

Himachal Wire Industries (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2005)(185)ELT303TriDel

Excerpt

1. heard both sides and perused the records. though the appeals are posted today only for consideration of stay applications, upon perusing the records and hearing both sides, it is seen that appeals themselves are required to be disposed of at this stage.2. the respondent is a manufacturer of galvanized iron wire. it made some supplies to world bank aided projects. such supplies are treated as deemed export, and as a result, no excise duty is required to be paid. since the respondents herein cleared the goods on payment of duty, it claimed as refund of the duty so paid. under the impugned order, the refund has been allowed.3. the present appeals of the revenue point out that refund should have been allowed in cenvat credit account and not in cash. the contention of the revenue has no merit. circular no. 220/54/96-cx dated 4-6-1996 of the board specifically advised payment in cash, even in the case of unutilized modvat credit relating to exports. the board's circular also specifically brings out the reason for advising cash refund. it is unfortunate that commissioners are filing appeals contrary to the circular of the board. higher authorities in the depart ment should take necessary steps to suppress such self-defeating appeals.4. in view of what is stated above, the appeals are rejected. since amounts due to the respondent are pending for quite sometime, it is directed that cash refunds may be paid within two weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides and perused the records. Though the appeals are posted today only for consideration of stay applications, upon perusing the records and hearing both sides, it is seen that appeals themselves are required to be disposed of at this stage.

2. The respondent is a manufacturer of Galvanized Iron Wire. It made some supplies to World Bank Aided Projects. Such supplies are treated as deemed export, and as a result, no excise duty is required to be paid. Since the respondents herein cleared the goods on payment of duty, it claimed as refund of the duty so paid. Under the impugned Order, the refund has been allowed.

3. The present appeals of the Revenue point out that refund should have been allowed in Cenvat Credit account and not in cash. The contention of the Revenue has no merit. Circular No. 220/54/96-CX dated 4-6-1996 of the Board specifically advised payment in cash, even in the case of unutilized Modvat credit relating to exports. The Board's Circular also specifically brings out the reason for advising cash refund. It is unfortunate that Commissioners are filing appeals contrary to the Circular of the Board. Higher authorities in the Depart ment should take necessary steps to suppress such self-defeating appeals.

4. In view of what is stated above, the appeals are rejected. Since amounts due to the respondent are pending for quite sometime, it is directed that cash refunds may be paid within two weeks of the receipt of a copy of this Order.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial