2002 (1) TMI 586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Atul Saxena, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. -  This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 18-4-2001 vide which the Commissioner as adjudicating authority has disallowed their abatement claim for the disputed periods. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots/billets. They file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....losure of the unit, but the Commissioner has wrongly not accepted the same without sufficient cause by observing that there was no presumption about the receipt of the intimation sent under postal certificate, by the jurisdictional Superintendent. The learned counsel has referred to the photo copies of the postal receipts placed on record showing the despatch of the letters by them on all the occa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... shows that the appellants did sent the intimation to the Asstt. Commissioner about the closure of the unit on all the occasions as required under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Rules. An intimation was also sent by them to the Superintendent of Central Excise and their exists no cogent reason to doubt their version that the said intimation was sent under postal certificate. They have also placed on record t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls, there was no motive or cause for them for not sending the intimation to the Superintendent. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the address mentioned on the postal certificates of the Superintendent was wrong/incorrect. There is also no material on the record to suggest that the letter sent by the appellants was received back as undelivered. Therefore, initial presumption deserves t....