Court grants abatement claim to fabric processors due to extended closure period under Rule 96ZQ(7)

The court set aside the order rejecting the abatement claim for the period 24-2-2000 to 29-2-2000. The appellants, engaged in fabric processing, were initially denied abatement under Notification No. 11/2000 requiring all stenters to be closed for seven days. However, Notification No. 31/2000 reinstated the rule allowing abatement for one stenter closure. The court found the stenters were closed for more than seven days, making the rejection of the abatement claim erroneous. The appellants were granted abatement for the disputed period under Rule 96ZQ(7), and their appeals were allowed with appropriate relief.

---

---

Issues:
Abatement claim rejection for the period 24-2-2000 to 29-2-2000 based on stenter closure duration.

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against a common Order-in-Appeal rejecting the abatement claim for the period 24-2-2000 to 29-2-2000. The appellants, engaged in processing man-made fabrics, had their stenters closed for different durations. Initially, abatement could be claimed if one stenter remained closed for seven days. However, Notification No. 11/2000 mandated all stenters to be closed for seven days for abatement. This was later superseded by Notification No. 31/2000, restoring the original rule of one stenter closure for abatement. The appellants claimed abatement only for the period under Notification No. 11/2000, as per which they were entitled to claim for the closure period of 24-2-2000 to 29-2-2000.

The authorities rejected the claim citing Rule 96ZQ(7) that required stenters to be closed for seven days for duty benefit. The appellants argued their stenters were closed for more than seven days but claimed abatement for five days due to Notification No. 11/2000. The JDR contended that since the stenter closure was less than seven days, the abatement claim was rightly rejected under the rule.

Upon review, it was found that the stenters had indeed remained closed for more than seven days, as per the facts. The rejection of abatement claim for the disputed period of five days was deemed erroneous due to Notification No. 11/2000, which made the claim inadmissible for periods other than those specified. The appellants were entitled to abatement for the claimed period under Rule 96ZQ(7).

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals of the appellants were allowed with any consequential relief permissible under the law.

---