2001 (11) TMI 351 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of abatement claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Compliance with rules for abatement claim.
3. Eligibility for abatement claim based on stock details.

Issue 1: Disallowance of abatement claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise
The appeal was against the order disallowing the abatement claim by the assessee, who operated an induction furnace unit manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots/billets. The Department proposed rejection of the claim due to non-compliance with certain rules, including failure to file required declarations and provide closing stock details in the letters submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted the contentions raised and examined the communication provided by the assessee regarding production stoppages and restarts, along with meter readings and stock positions.

Issue 2: Compliance with rules for abatement claim
The Tribunal referred to relevant rules, particularly Rule 96ZO(2)(b), (d), and (e), which required the assessee to intimate stock details along with meter readings when production stopped and restarted. The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide closing stock details in some communications, despite mentioning meter readings. The Tribunal rejected the argument that stock details could be obtained from the RG-1 register, emphasizing the mandatory nature of complying with the rules for claiming abatement. It was held that the assessee's claim for abatement during a specific period was correctly denied due to non-compliance with essential requirements under the rules.

Issue 3: Eligibility for abatement claim based on stock details
Regarding the second period under consideration, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided timely intimation with meter readings and closing stock details. The revenue contended that the assessee should have mentioned the weight of the ingots in addition to the number of pieces for duty assessment purposes. However, the Tribunal clarified that the abatement was related to the production capacity of the unit, not the actual quantity produced. It was held that the assessee was entitled to the abatement claimed for the specific period, despite the stock details being provided in terms of the number of ingots without their weight.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting abatement for the second period while upholding the denial of abatement for the first period due to non-compliance with the rules.