9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (1) TMI 586 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Abatement claim disallowed for disputed periods due to non-sending of intimation to jurisdictional Superintendent as required under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Rules. Analysis: The appellants, engaged in manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots/billets, filed abatement claims for specific periods, with one claim allowed and three disallowed by the Commissioner due to lack of intimation to the jurisdictional Superintendent as per Rule 96ZO(2)(a and c) of the Rules. The appellants did send intimation to the Asstt. Commissioner but not to the Superintendent, leading to the disallowance of the claims for the latter three periods. The counsel argued that intimation to the Superintendent was sent via postal certificate, supported by postal receipts as evidence. While conceding a delay in sending intimation for one period, it was contended that the Commissioner's refusal to accept the postal certificate as proof of receipt by the Superintendent was unjustified. The JDR failed to justify the Commissioner's decision to disallow the abatement claims. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellants did send intimation to the Asstt. Commissioner and Superintendent as required by the Rules, supported by postal certificates and other relevant documentation. The Commissioner's doubts regarding the receipt of intimation by the Superintendent were deemed legally untenable. The absence of evidence suggesting incorrect addresses or undelivered letters led the Tribunal to presume that the Superintendent received the intimation, despite the Superintendent's office denying receipt. The sole ground for disallowing the abatement claims was the lack of intimation to the Superintendent, a ground deemed invalid by the Tribunal's analysis. Since no other reasons were provided for disallowance, the Tribunal allowed the appellants' claims, except for one period where the claim was to be allowed from a specific date. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.
|
