2002 (2) TMI 599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise Act, 1944 during the material period. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZP read with the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3A, they were entitled to abatement of duty on a proportionate basis for any continuous period of not less than 7 days of non-production of products, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in clauses (a) to (e) of the said sub-rule. On 31-3-98, they submitted to the jurisdictional Commissioner an application for abatement of a total amount of duty of Rs. 5,97,914/- for the following periods totalling to 96 days :- (i)      1-10-97 to 7-10-97 (7 days) (ii)     17-11-97 to 1-12-97 (15 days) (iii)    8-12-97 to 23-12-97 (16 days....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of duty under the Rule was not to be denied to the assessee on the minor technical ground of non-filing of a formal declaration under clause (e). As regards the second ground for rejection of the abatement claim, ld. Counsel submitted that, in most of the letters of intimation of closure and restart of production, the appellants, by mere oversight, happened to show the closing balance of stock as opening balance, which, according to Counsel, did not substantially affect the merits of their abatement claim. He, therefore, submitted that the abatement claim for the entire period ought to have been allowed by the adjudicating authority. Ld. JDR, Shri H.C. Verma reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. 4. Examined the submissions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the abatement claim for the period 1-10-97 to 7-10-97. In respect of the remaining five periods, the abatement claim has been rejected on two grounds. One of these is the same as the aforesaid ground of non-filing of declaration under clause (e). In this connection, I observe that the periods are in the range of 10 to 33 days vide items (ii) to (vi) in para (1) of this order. In respect of each of these periods, if the letters of intimation of closure and restart of production submitted by the appellants to the Asstt. Commissioner are read together, the factum of continuous closure of furnace from the date of closure could be prudently discerned. However, in the absence of mention of the exact time of closure and the exact time of restar....