9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) whereby the respondent's appeal was partly allowed. 2. Heard the learned AR on behalf of the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent. There is also no adjournment request on the record. 3. The respondent/assessee are engaged in the manufacture of dry steel bars classifiable under Chapter 72 of the CETA, 1985. They manufactured the final product out of hot rolled coils and bars wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied the adjudication order insofar as only the excess CENVAT credit of Rs.3,84,185/- have to be recovered from them. 4. The learned AR on behalf of the appellant drew the attention of the Bench the grounds of appeal. He submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Technoweld Industries reported in 2003 (155) ELT 209 (SC) held that drawing of wire from wir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Technoweld Industries [2003-(155)-ELT-0209-SC]. Therefore, the benefit of availment of credit of duty on inputs by the 'wire drawing units' was withdrawn on 29.5.2003 by a circular issued by the Board. However, certain wire drawing units continued to pay a sum representing duty, and continued to pass on the credit of amount paid as duty to the ultimate buyer of drawn wire for further manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so not claim the refund of amount paid as duty on drawn wire, on the ground of unjust enrichment. In this regard, Board's letter dated 3rd January 2005 issued vide F. No. 139/3/2004-CX.4 may also be referred to. 4.4 The retrospective amendment in Rule 16 is aimed at facilitating 'wire drawing units', which had paid a sum equal to the duty leviable on 'drawn wire' after availing the credit of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
