TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lloy steel, and working under the Annual Capacity of Production Scheme as envisaged under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Under the said Rules the appellants are eligible to claim the abatement if the Re-rolling Mill is closed for a continuous period of not less than 7 days. The appellant vide their letter dated 13-4-99 claimed an abatement for 217 days closure for different period during the year 1998-99 and vide letter dated 17-4-2000 claimed an abatement for 197 days for different period during the year 1999-2000. In the de novo proceedings the adjudicating authority was directed to decide the abatement c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in a sense that I have to decide whether the rejection of the abatement claim made by the appellant is correct or otherwise. It is not disputed before me that appellants are functioning under the Annual Production Capacity Scheme. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has preferred the abatement claim for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 5.1 Provisions of Rule 96ZP(2) enables a manufacturer to claim abatement from payment of duty based on Annual Capacity, if the manufacturer does not produce the hot re-rolled products of non-alloy products of non-alloy steel during a continuous period of not less than seven days and he follows the procedure as laid down in Rule 96ZP(2). The provisions of Rule 96ZP(2) are as follows :- "Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the manufacturer shall on start of production again, along with the closing balance of stock on restarting the factory, intimate the reading of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise; (e) the manufacturer shall while sending intimation under clause (c), declare that his factory remained closed for a continuous period starting from hours on_______(date) to_____hours on_______(date)" 5.2 It is claimed by the appellant that they have followed the provisions of the above Rule strictly for claiming the abatement for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and submitted before me the copies of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at Serial No. 13." It can be seen from the above findings that the adjudicating authority while deciding on the abatement claim of year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 has considered the facts of only the year 1998-99 and came to conclusion that the claims are liable to be rejected. To my mind this approach is not correct, in as much that I find from the documents produced before me that the appellants have given the intimations required under Rule 96ZP(2) for the year 1999-2000. They have adhered to the provisions in to to and the adjudicating authority has not considered the same in his order-in-original. To my mind the said order denying the abatement claim for the year 1999-2000 is vitiated as it is not even cursorily referring to the docum....