TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs with five and four chambers. They had also declared that one of the stenter is working and other is sealed and accordingly provisional capacity was fixed and communicated to them on 23-12-1998. On 15-1-1999, the appellants intimated that one stenter having five chambers was sealed on 20-12-1998 and sought permission for dismantling the said stenter. On 3-2-1999, permission was granted to dismantle the said stenter and on 12-2-1999, the appellants intimated that seal of the stenter with five chambers was opened on 9-2-1999 and it was dismantled on 12-2-1999 but subsequent verification showed that it was dismantled only on 9-3-1999. Accordingly, while fixing annual capacity, the duty liability was reduced w.e.f. 9-3-1999 only. 2. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he position and according to the verification report the Dhall stenter was completely dismantled on 9-3-99. Therefore the notice is not eligible for abatement from 9-2-99 onwards as they have not dismantled it as claimed by them till 9-3-99 and it was not sealed. Therefore after giving abatement for the period from 16-12-98 to 8-2-99, the duty payable comes to Rs. (23,32,350-14,25,045) = Rs. 9,08,305/-. They are required to pay differential duty of Rs. 9,08,305/- out of Rs. 23,32,350/- as worked in Annexure 'A' to the show cause notice under Rule 96ZQ(5)(i) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. They are also required to pay interest @ 36% per annum on the aforesaid outstanding duty of Rs. 9,08,305/- under Rule 96ZQ(5)(i) of Central Excise Rules, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the instant case, the stenter was not dismantled till 9-3-1999. We find that the rules do not envisage the appellants reducing their duty liability on their own but only when the same is approved by the Commissioner. There is also a provision under Rule 96ZQ for granting abatement on complete closure of the Hot Air Stenter containing the chambers but not in case of closure of one or more chambers. Since in this case, the stenter in dispute, was not dismantled till 9-3-1999 and remained open, the appellants are also not eligible for abatement till such date. We also find that under Trade Notice dated 22-2-1999, reports are required to be submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, both in respect of dismantling of the chambers as well as disman....