2008 (7) TMI 795

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....liable to pay duty of excise on the processed fabrics under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, they were paying duty on a monthly basis as determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise under the Hot-air Stenter Independent Textile Processors (Annual Capacity Determination) Rules, 2000. Under sub-rule (7) of Rule 96ZQ read with sub-section (3) of Section 3A, an independent processor could claim abatement of duty for any continuous period of not less than 7 days during which his hot-air stenter did not function. Such claim would be entertained by the Commissioner of Central Excise, who would allow it subject to fulfilment of certain conditions stipulated u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement could be allowed if otherwise admissible, irrespective of whether the duty was paid first or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authority also set aside the penalties and demands of interest. 2. In the present appeals, it is the case of the Revenue that the decision of the lower appellate authority is against the mandate of Rule 96ZQ(7)(e) as this provision stood after the amendment which was effected on 28-2-1999. It is also contended that the Board's Circular was not to be followed for the period after 28-2-1999. We have heard the learned S.D.R. in support of these grounds. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on Varun Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I [2007....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hould not be required to pay duty for that period in advance. Condition (f) stipulated that, where the claim for abatement by the independent processor was for a period of less than one month, he was required to pay the duty for the entire period of the month and subsequently seek abatement of duty for the period of non-operation of the stenter. It is clear from this scheme of law that, where the claim for abatement was for a period of less than one month as in the present case, it was incumbent on the party to pay duty first and then claim abatement. In the cited case of Varun Silk Mills, the learned Single Member has treated this to be a procedural condition. 4. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we are of t....