2004 (3) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....opra, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The dispute in this case relates to interpretation of the provisions of Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 relating to payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme. The appellants claimed abatement on account of closure of their mill from 1-7-1999 to 2-8-1999 and from 2-8-1999 to 30-1-1999. The Commissioner (Appeals) held tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for a block period of one month. For e.g. while considering the abatement for the period 1-7-1999 to 2-8-1999, it is held that, the appellant is entitled for abatement for the period of 31 days of July 99. Thereafter, the closure of the stenter being only for two days i.e. 1-8-1999 and 2-8-1999, while the abatement for the complete month of July 1999 has been permitted, the closure for the month ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tement of duty for 31 days of July 1999. However, as the stenter was opened on 2-8-1999, the appellant were required to pay duty for the entire month of August 1999 and then directed to seek abatement for the period 1-8-2000 to 2-8-2000. Hence the claim for abatement was rejected. 5. Similarly, the claim in respect of stenter No. 85527 for the period from 2-8-1999 to 31-8-1999 was disallow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said period is spread over two consecutive calendar months, then the duty liability for each of the calendar month has to be abated separately. In other words, according to the Commissioner the broken period which spills over the succeeding month has to be reckoned as a separate period of abatement and not in continuation of the period of closure exceeding one month. 7. Heard both side....