2002 (1) TMI 1067 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of two abatement claims by the Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme during the material period, providing for abatement of duty for a continuous closure of not less than 7 days, subject to prescribed conditions. The abatement claims for two periods were rejected by the Commissioner due to various grounds, including failure to provide exact closure/restart times and lack of continuous closure declaration.

2. The appellants argued that the Commissioner's rejection of abatement claims was unjust as the determination of the annual capacity of production (ACP) was not done as per the Tribunal's remand order. They contended that one furnace was dismantled during the relevant period, and all necessary notifications and declarations were made to fulfill the conditions for abatement claims. The appellants emphasized that the Commissioner failed to consider crucial evidence and submissions.

3. The JDR reiterated the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the mandatory requirement of continuous closure declaration and citing relevant case law. The JDR argued that fulfilling all prescribed conditions was necessary for claiming abatement of duty and that non-compliance would disentitle the benefit.

4. Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the appellants had complied with the essential requirements for abatement claims for the first period, including providing closure and restart notices with exact times and referencing continuous closure in their communications. The Tribunal noted the failure of the Commissioner to consider the evidence presented by the appellants regarding the closure of one furnace. Therefore, the rejection of the abatement claim for the first period was set aside for a de novo decision by the Commissioner.

5. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning to the abatement claim for the second period, finding that the grounds for rejection were identical to the first period and that the appellants had fulfilled the necessary conditions. Consequently, the rejection of the abatement claim for the second period was set aside. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to provide a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to be heard in the remanded proceedings.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for the abatement claim for the second period and remanded the decision for the first period. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all evidence and submissions in such cases and ensuring compliance with prescribed conditions for claiming abatement of duty.