2002 (2) TMI 599 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Abatement claim rejection for various periods under Compounded Levy Scheme.

Analysis:
The appellants were manufacturing hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel under Compounded Levy Scheme. They sought abatement of duty for periods of non-production. The Commissioner rejected the claim due to non-compliance with the conditions. The main issues were the failure to file a declaration of continuous closure and showing opening stock instead of closing stock in the letters of intimation.

The first period's abatement claim was rejected because the required declaration of continuous closure was not filed. The subsequent periods were rejected for the same reason and also for showing opening stock instead of closing stock. The appellants argued that their letters of intimation implied continuous closure and the stock discrepancy was an oversight. The JDR supported the Commissioner's findings.

The Tribunal found that the declaration of continuous closure was crucial under the rules. The failure to mention exact closure and restart times made it impossible to verify continuous closure for the required period. While the closure was discernible from the letters, the lack of specific times hindered abatement approval. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the genuine mistake in stock reporting and emphasized that abatement should not be denied for such errors.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the abatement claim for the first period but allowed it for the remaining periods to a reduced extent after excluding terminal dates. The decision was based on the need for accurate documentation to support abatement claims. The judgment clarified that substantive benefits should not be denied due to technical errors, but compliance with procedural requirements is essential for claim approval.