2015 (10) TMI 422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Goa, wherein total demand of Rs. 54,04,368/- was confirmed  in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A penalty of equal amount and interest on the demand was also confirmed. The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of mild steel ingots falling under chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant filed declaration dated 10/11/1997 with the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa for availing the scheme of payment of Central Excise duty as provided under Rules 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. According to such provision appellant was required to pay Central Excise duty on the basis of the Annual....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....equirements. He submits that the appellant had intimated the department regarding the closure of the factory as well as restarting of production. The appellant also submitted that electricity bill for the relevant period which justifies fact that factory was remained closed. It is his submission that there is no denial by the Ld. adjudicating authority regarding the closure of the factory but he denied the abatement only on the ground that particular hours on which the factory stopped production and started production were not intimated to the department. He submits that there is no charge by the department that the appellant factory has produced ingots during the period of closure. He also submits that Goa Bench of Hon'ble High Court had a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tement and appeal may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, Shri. V.K. Shastri, Ld. Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. 5. The issue to be decided by us is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for abatement as provided under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. During the closure of the appellant factory, it is observed that the Ld. Commissioner has rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that even though the appellant had informed the department about closure of the unit on particular date and starting of the production on particular date but failed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... production from time to time through out the period involved in this case. In some of the intimation letter dated 15/3/2000, 24/3/2000 the appellant has intimated not only date of closure but also hours. The appellant also submitted the statement of closure and starting of furnace showing date and time and number of days of closure. We also gone through the letter from the electricity department wherein it can be seen that there was power restrictions imposed on the appellant's factory. This also goes on proving that factory remained closed as intimated by the appellants from time to time. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel it is seen from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa bench judgment in the case of appellant in writ petition No. 219/....