2002 (4) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chapter 72 and the same are subject to Central Excise duty at the compounding rates as per the provisions of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. In terms of Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where a manufacturer does not produce the goods during any continuous period of not less than seven days and wishes to claim abatement under sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... date of starting production. 2. The appellants applied to the Commissioner for abatement on closure of their units for different periods. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III vide his Order dated 14-12-2001 has disallowed their abatement claim for 21 days amounting to Rs. 3,43,700/- for the following periods :   S. No. Dt. of intimation of closure Dt. & time of closur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4-6-99 4-6-99 (0010 hrs) 18 10. 17-8-99 16-8-99 (2355 hrs) 30-8-99 30-8-99(0010 hrs) 13   11. 2-9-99 1-9-99 (2350 hrs) 20-9-99 20-9-99 18     12. 1-11-99 31-10-99 (2340 hrs) 16-11-99 16-11-99(0020 hrs) 15     13. 17-1-2000 16-1-2000 (2340 hrs) 1-2-2000 1-2-2000 (0030 hrs) 15 &....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Delhi-III. I have heard Shri R. Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellants and Shri H.C. Verma, JDR for the respondent. I have considered the submissions made by them. The legal provisions for claiming the abatement for the closure period of a unit under Rule 96ZO(2) and the facts of the case as enumerated above are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in each case the appellants were closi....