TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (11) TMI 396
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the Appellants manufacture Non-steel Ingots in respect of which Central Excise duty was paid under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that during the period from 1-9-97 to 31-3-98 their factory remained closed during the varying periods on account of disconnection of the power, periodical power cuts, shortage of raw materials, break-down in the furnace, etc.; that a show cause notice dated 5-6-98 was issued to them for demanding differential duty on the basis of the annual capacity of production determined by the Commissioner; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has confirmed the demand of duty without allowing abatement claimed by them and has also imposed an equivalent amount of penalty unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailable to them and that the duty on the quantity actually cleared by them was payable; that in any case if the Tribunal allows the abatement as claimed by them the duty amount has to be recomputed by the Commissioner as the actual demand of duty will come down on account of availability of abatement from the payment of duty. 3. Countering the arguments Shri Jagdish Singh, learned D.R., submitted that as per Rule 96ZO(2) the abatement was available subject to the conditions that the manufacturer informs in writing about the closure to the Asstt. Commissioner with a copy to the Suptd. either prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure; that he has to intimate the reading of the electricity meter along with the closing bal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eginning of the next month. He relied upon the decision in the case of Midland Alloys and Steel P. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, [2002 (139) E.L.T. 339 (T) = 2001 (47) RLT 1027 (CEGAT)] wherein the Tribunal disallowed the abatement as intimation of closing balance of stock of ingots and billets was not given. He also mentioned that the penalty is imposable as the Appellants are supposed to pay first the duty of Excise and then claim abatement from payment of duty. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has been stated by the learned Advocate for the Appellants that they had claimed the abatement for 8 different periods between September, 1997 to March, 1998. The learned Advocate has conceded their non-eligibility to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ister maintained by the assessees like the Appellants. It is true that on verification of these registers the stock of every point of time could be found out but in spite of such materials available in RG-1 Register it was thought necessary and provision is made under Rule 96ZO(2)(b) that as and when intimation is given by the assessee about the stoppage of production the closing balance of stock at that point of time also should be referred in the intimation". The ratio of the decision in the case of Steel Industries of Hindustan relied upon by the learned Advocate is not applicable as the Appellants therein had mentioned the opening balance instead of closing balance as required in clauses (b) and (d) of Rule 96ZO(2). In view of the fact ....