Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether abatement of duty under the compounded levy scheme could be denied for the dates of closure when intimation of stoppage of production was given to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on the same day, but the copy to the Range Officer was sent on the next day, and whether abatement was admissible for the second closure date when intimation was given on the following day.
Analysis: Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required intimation of closure either prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure, along with the electricity meter reading. For the first spell, the intimation was received by the Assistant Commissioner on the date of closure, and the statutory requirement was therefore satisfied notwithstanding that the copy reached the Range Officer on the next day. For the second spell, the factory had closed on 20/6/98, but the intimation was given on 21/6/98; hence abatement could not be denied for 21/6/98 when the closure intimation itself was furnished on that date.
Conclusion: The denial of abatement for 28/5/98 and 21/6/98 was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to abatement for those dates.