JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Since common question of law and fact arise for consideration in these petitions, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this judgment. 2. As the petitioner does not dispute the entitlement of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) to the refund of excise duty, but has only contested the mode and manner of such refund, therefore, the seminal issue in all these petitions is whether the rebate claims of the assessees were to be allowed in cash or sanctioned by way of re-credit. 3. However, before answering the question, brief facts as necessary for the disposal of these petitions may be noticed. 4. All the assessees are engaged in the manufacture and export of cotton yarn and woven fabrics, both for domestic market as well as for export and excise duty leviable thereon was 16%. By a notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, the assessees were granted relief in excise duty payable inasmuch as they were required to pay the duty at the rate of 4% on cotton yarn/fabrics and 8% on blended yarn/fabrics. 5. By another notification of the same date bearing No. 30/2004-CE, the assessees were granted total exemption from payment of duty on the products manufactured by them subject to the condition that no credit is taken on the inputs consumed in the manufacture of the final product. The assessees started clearing the goods for export on payment of duty on export under claim for rebate. As per the declarations the assessees had not availed Cenvat Credit on the inputs use. 6. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, sanctioned the rebate claim in cash. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed by holding that the adjudicating authority had erroneously allowed the rebate claim in cash and the same was required to be sanctioned by way of re-credit into their Cenvat Credit Account. 8. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order of Appellate Authority and the revisional Authority vide its order dated 03.02.2010 set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the same has not been impugned before us in these petitions. 9. 8. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order of Appellate Authority and the revisional Authority vide its order dated 03.02.2010 set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the same has not been impugned before us in these petitions. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned orders are patently illegal and erroneous as the revisional authority had itself on an earlier occasion passed an order in another revision petition holding the assessee therein to be entitled to the rebate by way of re-credit into their Cenvat Credit Account instead of sanctioning the same in cash. Not only this, the said order has been upheld by the learned Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in CWP No. 2235/2007 titled ‘M/S Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. versus The Union of India and another’, decided on 11.09.2008 (Annexure P-7). It is further averred that the revisional authority has failed to take into consideration the various provisions of the Act, Rules and Instructions issued from time to time and has further erred in passing two contradictory orders. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessees would argue that the orders passed by the revisional authority call for no interference as the same have been passed in conformity with the law. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 11. At the outset, it may be noticed that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short ‘Board’) has issued Circular No. 687 dated 03.01.2003 wherein it has been clarified that the duty paid through the actual credit or deemed credit account on the goods exported must be refunded in cash. 12. It shall be apt to reproduce the relevant circular which reads thus:- “Circular: 687/3/2003-CX. Dated 03-Jan-2003 Rebate of duty paid from Cenvat credit account for exported goods to be refunded in cash Circular No. 687/3/2003-CX., dated 3-1-2003 F.No.267/57/2002-CX-8 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject: Payment of rebate amount of the duty paid from Cenvat credit account in cash-Regarding I am directed to draw your attention to Board’s Circular No.21/89-CX. 6, dated 11-5-89 issued from F.No.210/21/87-CX.6, Circular No. 153/64/95-CX., dated 12-10-95 issued from F.No.209/47/95-CX. 6, dated 11-5-89 issued from F.No.210/21/87-CX.6, Circular No. 153/64/95-CX., dated 12-10-95 issued from F.No.209/47/95-CX. 6 and Circular No. 262/96/96-CX., dated 6-11-96 issued from F.No.209/36/96-CX. 6 [1996 (88) E.L.T.T39] wherein it has been, inter alia, clarified that rebate could be sanctioned in cash in respect of the duty payment made through credit accounts of Modvat scheme on inputs or capital goods or deemed credit account. Subsequently, Board has been receiving representations from trade to say that the rebate is not being granted in cash. 2. The matter has been examined by the Board. It is the view that there is no discretion with the sanctioning authority to give the refund of the duty paid on goods exported through credit accounts. It is therefore clarified that the duty paid through the actual credit or deemed credit account on the goods exported must be refunded in cash. 3. Field formations may please be informed suitably. 4. Receipt of the same may be acknowledged. 5. Hindi version will follow.” 13. Adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner whereby he has vehemently argued that the instant cases are covered by the judgment in M/S Nahar Industrial Enterprises (supra), suffice it to say that we have gone through the said judgment and find that the same is clearly distinguishable because therein the admitted case of the parties was that the assessee had paid lesser duty on the domestic product and higher duty on the export product, therefore, the Circular No. 687 was inapplicable to the case. It was in this background that the Court then made the following order while dismissing the petition of the assessee. “After giving our anxious consideration to the entire matter, we are of the opinion that this writ petition must fail. It would be noticed that there is no dispute regarding entitlement of the petitioner for refund, it is only the mode thereof which is the matter of contention. While the petitioner asserts that it is entitled to claim the entire refund in cash, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to cash refund only of the portion deposited by it by actual credit and for the remaining portion, refund by way of credit is appropriate. The first reliance of the petitioner is on the above quoted circular No. 687. The first reliance of the petitioner is on the above quoted circular No. 687. A reading of the same makes it clear that it did not deal with the distinction between the duty paid and duty payable. In our opinion, the said circular only laid down that the duty paid and payable would be refundable in cash. In the present case, as noticed above, the petitioner paid lesser duty on the domestic product and higher duty on the export product which was admittedly not payable. This circular can, thus, be of no avail to the petitioner.” 14. Indisputably, this is not the fact situation obtaining in these cases as there was no dispute about the nature, quality, quantity, value, duty paid character, actual export of the goods and such claims of the assessees having been verified within the time. Even the declaration filed by the assessees to the effect that the value i.e. assessable value declared in ARE-I on which duty had been paid is the transaction value determined under Section 4 and the Range Officer had also verified the same and it is only thereafter that the rebate of duty mentioned in ARE-I was held admissible to the assessees. Once the assessees are held entitled to the rebate, then obviously, in terms of Circular No.687, there was no discretion available with the sanctioning authority to give refund of duty paid on goods exported, save and except, in cash and the same could not have been paid by way of credit in the Cenvat Credit Account. 15. It is more than settled that the circulars issued by the Board are binding on the department and the department cannot be permitted to urge that the circulars issued by the Board are not binding on it. 15. It is more than settled that the circulars issued by the Board are binding on the department and the department cannot be permitted to urge that the circulars issued by the Board are not binding on it. This has so been held in a series of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K.Sen AIR 1965 SC 1375 , Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 4 SCC 474 , K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 4 SCC 173 , Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2004) 10 SCC 1 , CCE v. Usha Martin Industries (1997) 7 SCC 47 , Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE (1996) 10 SCC 387 , CCE v. Jayant Dalal (P) Ltd. (1997) 10 SCC 402 , CCE v. Kores (India) Ltd. (1997) 10 SCC 338 , Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE (1999) 7 SCC 84 and Dabur India Ltd. v. CCE (2004) 13 SCC 107 . 16. In Commissioner of Customs versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 488 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court after examining the entire case law culled out the following principles: (SCC p.497, para 12) “(1) Although a circular is not binding on a court or an assessee, it is not open to the Revenue to raise a contention that is contrary to a binding circular by the Board. When a circular remains in operation, the Revenue is bound by it and cannot be allowed to plead that it is not valid nor that it is contrary to the terms of the statue. (2) Despite the decision of this Court, the Department cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the instructions issued by the Board. (3) A show-cause notice and demand contrary to the existing circulars of the Board are ab initio bad. (4) It is not open to the Revenue to advance an argument or file an appeal contrary to the circulars.” 17. Similar reiteration of law can be found in a latter judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus Arviva Industries India Limited and others (2014) 3 SCC 159. 18. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is evidently clear that the circular issued by the Board cannot be assailed by the petitioner herein. Similar reiteration of law can be found in a latter judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus Arviva Industries India Limited and others (2014) 3 SCC 159. 18. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is evidently clear that the circular issued by the Board cannot be assailed by the petitioner herein. Further, there can be no dispute that in terms of the said circular, there was no discretion vested with the sanctioning authority to give the refund of the duty on goods exported through credit accounts, rather the duty paid through actual credit or deemed credit account on the goods exported has to be refunded only in cash. 19. That being the legal position, we do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the files of connected matters.