2002 (4) TMI 769 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Abatement claim based on closure of factory and compliance with Rule 96ZO(2)

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding the issue of abatement based on the closure of the factory in September 1997. The main contention revolved around the proper submission of intimation regarding closure and resumption of factory operations. The appellant's representative highlighted that the intimation was submitted to the Superintendent, who then forwarded it to the Assistant Commissioner, as per the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2). The appellant argued that compliance was met despite not directly submitting the intimation to the Assistant Commissioner.

The appellant's defense was supported by references to previous tribunal decisions and the specific requirements outlined in Rule 96ZO(2). The rule mandates that manufacturers must inform the Assistant Commissioner in writing about factory closure and subsequent resumption of production, along with providing necessary details like electricity meter readings and stock balances. The appellant contended that the intimation sent to the Superintendent, who then forwarded it to the Assistant Commissioner, fulfilled the legal requirements.

On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to. They emphasized that the law explicitly states that all intimations must be sent directly to the Assistant Commissioner, and any deviation is not permissible. The Revenue also rejected the applicability of previous tribunal decisions cited by the appellant, asserting that the legislative intent was clear in requiring direct communication with the Assistant Commissioner for such matters.

Upon considering the arguments presented by both parties and reviewing the case records, the judge concluded that the appellant was bound to comply with the statutory provisions as outlined in Rule 96ZO(2). The judge found no merit in the appellant's case and deemed the Commissioner's decision to reject the abatement claim as appropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner's order.

In essence, the judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory provisions in matters of compliance with rules governing abatement claims based on factory closures. The decision reinforces the principle that legal requirements must be followed meticulously, and deviations from specified procedures may result in the rejection of claims, as demonstrated in this case.