2012 (10) TMI 735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. After perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding non-granting of abatement to the appellant. The appellant, in this case, has suo-moto has availed the abatement which was an issue before the Tribunal in Appeal No.E/61/2006 in the appellant s own case for the very same period. The Bench, after hearing both sides, passed the following order. On matter being called, neither anybody appeared nor is there any request for adjournment inspite of notice of hearing having been sent well in advance. We also note that the appellants were unrepresented on the last number of occasions, when the matter has come on board and was being repeatedly adjourned in the interest of justice. In view of the above, we ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the stenter was closed for 22 days and during that period, no production/manufacture activity was done by the appellant. However, he has observed that to avail the abatement from Central Excise duty, appellant has to follow condition (f) of Rule 96ZQ(7) which is to the effect that when the claim for abatement by the independent processor is for a period of less than one month, he shall be required to pay the duty, as applicable, for the entire period of the month and may subsequently seek such claim after payment of such duty. As such, he observed that as the appellant did not deposit the amount in question, their claim for abatement cannot be considered. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent, Tribunal observed as under in para 3 of their judgment. 3. As far as the claim for abatement for the period 19-4-99 to 26-4-99, 8-5-99 to 17-5-99 and 21-6-99 to 28-6-99 are concerned, the provisions contained under clause (e) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 96ZQ would be applicable. Appellants submit that it is ready to make the payment of the duty for this period which had been short-paid so that its claim for abatement can be considered. According to the appellant instead of totally rejecting the claim for abatement for the above period, the Commissioner should have granted it an opportunity to make the payment and then consider the claim for abatement. In view of the stand taken by the appellant that they are prepared to remit the duty s....