TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, which is applicable only to manufacturer having Furnace capacity of 3 tonnes or below, the monthly lump-sum payment of duty @ Rs.6,66,666/- was determined instead of Rs.5 lakhs applicable under Rule 976ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules. During the period from March, 1998 to March, 2000, the appellant had to close the factory for more than 15 days on many occasions and the appellant paid proportionate duty for the days on which the factory was working. Due to erratic power supply by the Goa Electricity Department, the factory was working only to the extent of 30% to 35% of its capacity. According to the provisions existing during the relevant time as submitted by the appellant, if the closure of the factor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Central Excise concerned. In this letter, the appellants discussed the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) and also cited the details of the letter submitted by them in respect of the period for which they had sought abatement. Further, they also relied upon some Tribunal decisions in support of their submission that the abatement should not be denied based on omissions of technical nature. However, no reply was received to this letter. In the meanwhile, show-cause notices issued were adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, who confirmed the demand proposed to be recovered in the show-cause notices on the ground that the appellants were not eligible for abatement in view of the decision taken by the Commissioner and communicated to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... letter dated 1.8.2005, which was not accepted. Further, he also drew our attention to the written submission made before the Commissioner (Appeals) after having appeared for personal hearing on 23.1.2006. In this appeal memo, the appellants had indicated that they were informed by the Joint Commissioner on 1.8.2005 about the rejection of their abatement claim. They also submitted that they had made a representation against the same, which was not decided or replied to. He also submitted that both the authorities have considered the provisions of Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules as it existed during the period from 1.8.1997 to 30.8.1997 during which the Compounded Levy Scheme was not implemented. In fact the Compounded Levy Scheme came ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al as it is only against a letter and not against order. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel that the appellants were placed in a hopeless situation, even though it can be stated that they could have submitted the appeal by the Speed Post. Nevertheless, we find that in the written submissions made before the Commissioner (Appeals) after personal hearing, they had given all these details and further, they had also submitted an affidavit to this effect. Even at this stage, the Commissioner (Appeals) could have verified the facts and circumstances and could have taken a decision whether the appellants were prevented from filing an appeal as claimed by them or not. This has not been done. Further, as subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it has attained finality against the appellants and therefore, take a view that since this letter had attained finality, the appellants have no right to claim abatement. 6.The learned Jt. CDR cited several decisions in support of his contention that the letter is to be treated as an order and therefore, it is to be held that it has attained finality in the absence of an appeal. In the case of Indian Sugar & General Engg. Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex. Reported in 1992 (62) ELT 657 (Tri), an appeal had been filed against the order of the Collector communicated by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the department had contested it saying that this was not an order. In that case, the appellants had filed an appeal against the de....