2002 (7) TMI 716 - AT - Central Excise

Partial Appeal Success for Kalyan Agro: Abatement Granted for Some Days, Denied for Others

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by M/s. Kalyan Agro Industries Ltd., granting abatement for specific days but upholding denial for others. The ... Production capacity based duty - Abatement of duty - Closure of factory Issues:- Whether rebate of duty of excise is admissible to M/s. Kalyan Agro Industries Ltd. in terms of proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.Analysis:1. The Appellate Tribunal considered the appeal by M/s. Kalyan Agro Industries Ltd. regarding the admissibility of rebate of duty of excise under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.2. The Appellant's representative argued that they had duly informed the authorities about factory closures, citing specific instances where closures were communicated, even though the authorities claimed non-receipt of intimation. The representative relied on previous tribunal decisions to support their claim for abatement of duty during closure periods.3. The Departmental Representative contended that the Appellant had a pattern of closing the factory on specific days to avoid timely intimation to the authorities, emphasizing the importance of intimation to prevent clandestine activities. They referred to a case where the failure to inform the Assistant Commissioner led to the rejection of abatement claim.4. The Tribunal examined the legal provisions requiring written intimation of factory closure to the Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent. In a specific case from 24-10-97 to 3-11-97, the Appellant claimed to have sent intimation by post, but failed to provide conclusive evidence of delivery to the authorities. As the closure intimation was not received by the Range Superintendent and Divisional Office in time, the abatement claim was rejected for this period.5. For the period from 2-3-98 to 14-3-98, the abatement was denied only for 2-3-98 due to delayed intimation to the Assistant Commissioner. However, as the Range Superintendent received the intimation on time, the Tribunal found no grounds to reject the abatement claim for that specific day.6. Regarding the closure period from 31-1-98 to 10-2-98, the Tribunal noted that the closure was pre-planned due to recession, and the Appellant failed to send timely intimation as required by law. Comparisons to other cases where intimation delays were excused due to holidays were found irrelevant. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the denial of abatement for this period.7. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting abatement for specific days while upholding the denial for others based on the compliance with intimation requirements and the circumstances of each closure period.