2002 (1) TMI 875 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Abatement of duty for closure periods from 13-11-97 to 20-11-97 and 4-12-97 to 13-12-97.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of non-alloy steel ingots/billets, sought abatement from duty for two closure periods. The Commissioner initially rejected the abatement request for both periods. The first issue addressed was the closure period from 13-11-97 to 20-11-97. The Commissioner's order highlighted the absence of a 'continuous closure' declaration as required by Rule 96ZO(2)(e). However, the appellant had informed the authorities about the closure and restart dates, stock details, and electricity meter readings in letters dated 13-11-97 and 20-11-97. The Tribunal found this information sufficient to fulfill the mandatory provisions, allowing abatement for this period.

Moving to the second closure period from 4-12-97 to 13-12-97, the Commissioner noted a delay in the intimation of restart to the authorities. The rule required prior written notification to the Assistant Commissioner or on the date of restart. The appellant's communication reached the authorities on 15-12-97, two days after the restart. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the closure of offices on 13-12-97 and 14-12-97 (Saturday and Sunday). Citing the General Clause Act, the appellant contended that the intimation was within the prescribed period. The Tribunal agreed, considering the closed days and allowed abatement for this period as well.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, granting abatement for both closure periods.