2002 (2) TMI 821 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of abatement claims under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 due to failure to give intimation of closure/restart production to the jurisdictional Central Excise Range Superintendent.

Analysis:

1. Rejection of Abatement Claims:
The three appeals filed by the assessee were against the rejection of abatement claims under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the jurisdictional Commissioner. The rejection was based on the ground that the assessee did not provide intimation of closure/restart production to the jurisdictional Central Excise Range Superintendent as required by the clauses (b) & (d) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO. The claims were rejected for different periods, but all on identical grounds.

2. Contentions of the Appellants:
The appellants argued that they had fulfilled the other requirements of abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) by giving intimation of closure and restart of production to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. They claimed that the copies of notices were sent to the Range Superintendent either under certificate of posting or by ordinary post on the same day as given to the Assistant Commissioner. They contended that the requirements of clauses (b) & (d) were substantially satisfied, and they should be entitled to abatement of duty.

3. Arguments and Submissions:
The advocate for the appellants argued that the substantial requirements of clauses (b) & (d) were met by giving intimation to the Assistant Commissioner, even though the copies to the Range Superintendent were sent under certificate of posting or by ordinary post. The advocate relied on a previous final order in a similar case where dispatching notices to the Range Superintendent was accepted as compliance with the requirements. The appellants sought allowance of the abatement claims based on this precedent.

4. Revenue's Position:
The JDR representing the Revenue reiterated the Commissioner's findings and cited a decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench to support the mandatory nature of giving intimation to both the Range Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner for claiming abatement of duty. Non-fulfillment of this requirement, according to the Revenue, would disentitle the claimant from the relief.

5. Judgment and Decision:
The Tribunal found that the abatement claims were rejected solely because copies of notices were not duly provided to the Range Superintendent, while all other conditions under Rule 96ZO(2) were fulfilled by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the notices were duly submitted to the Assistant Commissioner, and considering that all other requirements were met, the failure to provide copies to the Range Superintendent should not disentitle the assessee from the substantive benefit of abatement. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding the assessees eligible for the abatement claims.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the substantial fulfillment of requirements and compliance with the Compounded Levy Scheme warranted granting the abatement claims despite the technicality of not providing copies to the Range Superintendent.