2005 (11) TMI 415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d a claim for refund of duty of Rs. 2,32,292/-with the department on 30-4-2003. The claim was of the duty paid on wires drawn from wire rods and was based on a judgment of the Apex Court that drawing of wire from wire rod would not amount to manufacture. The original authority by Order-in-Original No. 120/2003, dated 31-12-2003 sanctioned cash refund of Rs. 79,303/- and, in respect of the balance .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ld. SDR has reiterated this contention. No representation for the respondents despite notice, nor any request of their s for adjournment. 2. After examining the records and considering the submissions of ld. SDR, I am inclined to accept the above contention of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the respondents had manufactured and cleared only non-dutiable wires during the material period. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment had also filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the order of the original authority allowing Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,52,989/- to the assessee. This appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Order-in-Appeal No. 52/2004, dated 30-8-2004 in view of the earlier OIA No. 23/2004, dated 26-3-2004. Now that OIA No. 23/2004 stands set aside, OIA No. 52/2004 must als .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X