2003 (2) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts to pay interest as well as mandatory penalty equal to the duty amount for the delayed deposit of the duty in terms of Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Rules. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents applied for abatement of duty for the period 18-2-2000 to 28-2-2000 on the ground that their stenter remained closed for this period. They, however, did not make deposit of the duty for the entire month of Feb. 2000 in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules, at the time of filing of abatement claim. They however, later during  the pendency of the rebate claim made deposit of the entire duty in instalment as detailed in the order itself. The Commissioner has allowed abatement claim but directed the respondents to pay....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....E, New Delhi - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 143. 5. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 6. So far as the first ground of the Revenue that entire factory should have remained close for claiming abatement of duty for the period in question by the respondents, the same is wholly mis-conceived. This ground was not even alleged in the show cause notice. The Revenue cannot be permitted to trave beyond the scope of show cause notice and allowed to put up altogether a new ground for resisting the abatement claim of the respondents. Even otherwise, from the bare perusal of Rule 96ZQ, no such requirement can be spelled out. Rather the perusal of this rule shows that the abatement can be claimed in respect of a single stenter....