2004 (12) TMI 584

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri P.M. Rao, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appeal is directed against denial of abatement claim of the appeal under Rule 96ZQ(7). The appellant was a textile processor and was discharging Central Excise duty under compounded levy scheme. The processing was being carried out by using one stenter and the appellant had already discharged duty for the month of March, 2000. The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Superintendent also. Pursuant to this letter the appellant's stenter was sealed by Central Excise Officer on 15-3-2000. All the same the appellants' claim for abatement was rejected under the impugned order. Two grounds have been taken in the order. The first being is that in terms of sub-rule 7(A) of Rule 96ZQ, the appellant should have informed in writing about the closure "atleast three days p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant's contention is that since there was only one stenter working in the premises, its closure should have been treated as closure of the factory. It is further being pointed out that, in the present case, since the appellant had discontinued the processing activity altogether w.e.f. 15-3-2000 by dismantling the machinery, there could be no finding that the appellant had not closed the factory....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ree prior to the closure of the unit i.e. 13, 14 and 15-3-2000. In these facts, it would appear that even without resort to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, the appellant's intimation was within time. Since the sealing of the unit had taken place on 15-3-2000, it was not proper on the part of the department to raise the dispute of delay in filing for the purpose of denying abatement. Further....