2017 (11) TMI 1504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ischarged based on the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) fixed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant had installed two furnaces with capacity of 3 MTS each. The ACP was fixed and the duty liability determined at Rs. 10,00,000/- per month. The appellant had stopped production during the following periods, during which both the furnaces were not functioning and claimed the abatement of duty on pro-rate basis before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore. The details of period of closure are as under:- Sl. No. Period of Closure No. of Days Amt. claimed in Rs. Amt. eligible (in Rs.) 01 14.04.1999 to 28.04.1999 (06 A.M. to 10 00 A.M.) 14 days & 4 hrs. 5,06,556/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Rs. 2,28,494.70. He submitted that appellant prays for limiting the claim to the amount arrived by the Commissioner as the amount eligible and is not contesting the amount over and above, the amount arrived by the Commissioner in respect of period of closure for Sl. No. 1 and 3 in the table. The Commissioner, rejected the claim holding that appellant had not paid the duty liability in advance as required under Rule 96ZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the appellant's own case, dated 16.09.2010 in W.P. No. 22656/2001 where the Hon'ble High Court has held the issue in favour of the appellant referring to Board Circular No.485/51/99-Cx., dated 15.09.1999....