2000 (5) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat, when the manufacturing unit remained closed for a continuous period of not less than 7 days, the manufacturer was entitled to abatement of duty on fulfilment of certain conditions as laid down under sub-rule 2. The appellant's unit, according to them, remained closed from 16-12-1997 to 23-12-1997. With an obvious intention of claiming abatement of duty in respect of this period the appellants gave intimation of closure of the unit to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 17-12-1997 under sub-rule 2 of Rule 96ZO. It appears that the appellants did not pursue their claim for abatement of duty for the period. In their letter of intimation given to the Assistant Commissioner as above, the party had stated their stock position of M.S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 25,000/- "towards other charges". The contention of ld. Consultant is that the fine so imposed was not in lieu of confiscation but "towards other charges", which according to him, is beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Central Excise Act. Ld. Consultant has also challenged the finding of the lower appellate authority that the imposition of fine by the Assistant Commissioner was impliedly in lieu of confiscation of the goods. The further contention of ld. Consultant is that the appellants' explanation for the difference in stock position was not properly considered by any of the lower authorities and therefore the confiscation and the penalty have to be set aside. 5. Ld. JDR has reiterated the ....