2005 (8) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bipin Verma, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the abatement claim under Rule 96ZQ(7) of Central Excise Rules was rejected on the ground that the abatement was only four days and the rule provides the stenter should remain closed for more than seven days. 3. In this case, the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00 to 29-2-2000 is only for four days. 4. The contention of the appellant is that their stenter remained closed from 26-2-2000 to 31-3-2000 and this fact is admitted by the Revenue in the show cause notice. The stenter was opened on 31-3-2000 for dismantling and thereafter the same was dismantled. The contention is that their stenter remained closed for more than seven days and the claim w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enied. 6. The contention of the Revenue is that as per provisions of Rule 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules the manufacturer work under the Compounded Levy Scheme can ask for abatement if their stenter remained closed for more than seven days and this provisions was applicable only up to 29-2-2000. Prior to this, they are closed only for four days, therefore, the abatement claim was rightly den....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect of the closure of whole of the factory. The Tribunal in the case of Shubh Timb Steels Ltd. (supra) held that the provisions of abatement provided under the Central Excise Rules provides that a manufacturer can ask for abatement in case their unit was closed for more than seven days. This does not restricted the claim which was less than seven days. In the present case as the stenter remained c....