2001 (11) TMI 342 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) due to closure of furnace.

Analysis:
The appellants were manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots/billets and paying duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme. They closed their induction furnace on 24-3-2000 and restarted production on 1-4-2000, seeking abatement of duty for the closure period under Rule 96ZO(2). The Commissioner rejected their claim, stating the intimation of closure was not given on the date of closure as required by the rule, leading to the appeal.

The advocate for the appellants argued that the Range Supdt. verified the declarations during the closure and restart of the furnace, confirming their accuracy. The Commissioner's decision was criticized for being overly technical regarding the date of closure. The appellants' counsel requested setting aside the order and granting the abatement claim.

The JDR opposed the appeal, citing Rule 96ZO(2) and a Trade Notice stating that in cases of closures on holidays, the party should inform the authorities by Telegram on the closure date itself. The JDR emphasized that the appellants did not follow this procedure and that the Supdt.'s verification did not relate to the closure date. The JDR urged for the appeal to be rejected.

Upon examination, it was confirmed that the furnace was closed between 24-3-2000 and 1-4-2000. The Range Supdt. certified the accuracy of the declarations made by the appellants regarding the closure date. The judgment highlighted the impracticality of giving prior intimation on the closure date, which fell on a Friday before holidays. The Trade Notice did not apply as the closure was not pre-planned. The appellants informed the officers on 27-3-2000, and the Range Supdt. verified the details related to the closure date. The judgment criticized the Commissioner's failure to appreciate this evidence and granted the appeal, allowing the abatement claim for the closure period.

In conclusion, the judgment set aside the Commissioner's order and granted the appeal, providing consequential reliefs to the appellants based on the evidence and interpretation of Rule 96ZO(2).