"Having considered the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, by the counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that in the instant case, as noted above, the factual aspects are required to be kept in mind. The finding of the authorities below is, that the, refund of excise duty is pivoted on the manufacturing activity carried on by the assesse. Once such a finding of fact has been returned we need not go further and examine the immediate and proximate source of refund of excise duty. In other words, as to whether there was direct nexus between the refund of excise duty and industrial activity. As a matter of fact, in the questions proposed by the Revenue, there is no specific question, that this finding of the authorities below is perverse. There is of course a very broad based and general question that the order passed by the ITAT is perverse in law and on facts. According to us, such a question is vague. A perusal of the grounds of appeal would substantiate this aspect of the matter. There is no ground taken by the Revenue whereby the substantial findings of fact have been challenged by the Revenue as being perverse" (relavant extract from DHC order)
(Click here for judgment)
Supreme Court SLP dismissal portion (final order):
"Heard learned counsel on both sides.
Delay condoned.
The special leave petition is dismissed."
(Click here for SLP)
Earlier Interim Order of SC:
"The special leave petition shall stand over for four weeks in order to enable the assessee herein to file an additional affidavit indicating therein the accounting treatment which has been given by the assessee to the expenses incurred towards payment of excise duty."
(Click here for order)
New User? 
Subscribe Now