2006 (8) TMI 214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... only one furnace and not the factory as a whole, was closed which was the prerequisite for claiming abatement as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (ii) Whether penalty imposed under Rule 96ZO(3) upon a manufacturer of non-alloy steel ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and who opted to pay duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 but failed to pay the whole of the amount payable for any month by the 15th day or the last day of such month, as the case may be, is mandatory or discretionary in nature ?" 2. Briefly, the facts are that the assessee in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g officer, for the reason that the factory, as a whole, was not closed and it was merely one furnace which was closed. 4. In appeal before the Tribunal, claim of the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal by recording the following findings : "7. Both the furnaces installed by the appellants in their factory, as observed above, had been working independently and their production during the disputed period were recorded separately in separate records, by the appellants. Both the furnaces had also independent electricity connections and whenever any furnace was closed, the appellants furnished its meter reading to the department. The production of each furnace recorded in separate record and the meter readings furnished by the appellants at t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case of the appellants as in that case, there was no independent installation of meter and maintenance of record by the assessee regarding the production of each furnace and at no stage, separate independent registration in respect of each unit/furnace was granted to the assessee. It was for these reasons, the Tribunal took the view that the abatement was not permissible for non-closure of the entire unit/factory. But in the present case, the facts and circumstances detailed above are quite different. 9. In the light of discussion made above, the adjudicating authority has, in our view, wrongly disallowed the abatement claims of the appellants for the periods detailed above. The impugned order in that regard cannot be sustained and is set....