Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2002 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (1) TMI 1177 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Abatement of duty claim partially allowed, verification report not supplied to the appellants, claim disallowed for failure to file closure intimation, correctness of duty amount calculation, appeal for setting aside the impugned order. Analysis: The appellants, engaged in manufacturing M.S. ingots, claimed abatement of duty due to unit closure. The Commissioner partly allowed the claim but disallowed a portion, leading to the appeal. The appellants' claim for the period 17-12-98 to 30-12-98 was allowed, but for 19-1-99 to 3-2-99, disallowed due to the absence of closure intimation. The Commissioner modified the recommendations, allowing duty abatement of Rs. 15,07,148/- instead of the claimed Rs. 22,98,349/-. The Counsel argued that the verification report by the A.C. was not provided to the appellants. They contended that the abatement should have started from 16-12-98 and that closure intimation was indeed given, supported by fax messages. The Counsel highlighted discrepancies in duty amount calculation, referencing detailed annexures. The Counsel urged setting aside the impugned order for a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal observed that the verification report was crucial for the appellants, especially when the Commissioner did not fully act upon it. The failure to provide this report affected the appellants' rights. Regarding the disallowed claim period, the Counsel presented fax messages as evidence of closure intimation, which the Commissioner seemingly overlooked. This omission was deemed a miscarriage of justice, warranting setting aside the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a re-examination of the abatement claims, ensuring compliance with the law and granting the appellants an opportunity for a hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of due process and proper consideration of all relevant documents in such matters.
|