2001 (12) TMI 360 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of abatement claim under Clause (d) of sub-rule 7 of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 due to delay in notice of restart of stenter.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of abatement claim due to delay in notice of restart of stenter under Clause (d) of Rule 96ZQ(7) of Central Excise Rules, 1944

The appellants, independent processors under the Compounded Levy Scheme, filed an abatement claim for the period their stenter remained closed. The claim was rejected by the Commissioner citing non-fulfillment of requirements under Clause (d) of Rule 96ZQ(7) due to a delay in the notice of restart of the stenter to the Asstt. Commissioner. The appellants argued that the Department desealed the stenter based on the notice given to the Superintendent and Asstt. Commissioner, thus waiving the requirement. They contended that the notice given to the Superintendent in advance should be considered valid for the abatement claim. The Counsel relied on previous Tribunal decisions regarding refund claims to support their argument that minor technical lapses should not deny substantive benefits to the assessee.

The Department opposed the appeal, emphasizing the specific requirement under Clause (d) of Rule 96ZQ(7) for a 3-day advance notice to the Asstt. Commissioner, which was not met in this case. They distinguished between refund claims and abatement claims, stating that the cited case law on refund claims was not applicable to the present situation. The Department also referred to a Circular mentioned in the impugned order and requested the rejection of the appeal.

Upon examination, the Tribunal observed that the Department acted upon the notice of restart by desealing the stenter on the same day. The rejection was solely based on the 2-day advance notice to the Asstt. Commissioner instead of the required 3 days. The Tribunal reasoned that the notice given to the Superintendent in compliance with the Rule should be considered along with the notice to the Asstt. Commissioner. It was noted that the Commissioner himself considered the delay condonable, indicating flexibility in the Rule. The Tribunal agreed with the Counsel's argument that the appellants substantially fulfilled the requirements for the abatement claim and that any delay should have been condoned without a formal application. The Tribunal distinguished between refund and abatement claims, ultimately allowing the appeal and granting consequential reliefs to the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellants met the requirements of Clause (d) of Rule 96ZQ(7) for the abatement claim, and the delay in the notice of restart should have been condoned. The Tribunal emphasized that substantive benefits should not be denied due to minor technical lapses and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.