2002 (11) TMI 396 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether abatement from payment of Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act is available to the appellant.

Analysis:
In the appeal filed by M/s. Vishal Metal Casting P. Ltd., the issue revolved around the availability of abatement from payment of Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The Appellant contended that they manufacture Non-steel Ingots and faced factory closures due to various reasons during a specific period. They claimed that the abatement was wrongly disallowed by the Commissioner, leading to a demand for differential duty and imposition of a penalty. The Appellant's arguments were based on delay in intimation of factory closure, failure to provide electricity meter readings, and closing stock information. They cited relevant case laws to support their claims.

The Respondent, represented by Shri Jagdish Singh, argued that as per Rule 96ZO(2), abatement was subject to specific conditions, including timely intimation of factory closure, providing electricity meter readings, and closing stock details. The Respondent emphasized the importance of these requirements to prevent clandestine activities and cited Tribunal decisions to support their stance. It was asserted that the Appellant's failure to comply with these conditions rendered them ineligible for abatement.

Upon considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal upheld the denial of abatement for specific periods where the Appellant failed to provide essential information. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of complying with Rule 96ZO(2) conditions, emphasizing that RT-12 Returns did not substitute the requirement for timely and accurate information submission. The Tribunal referenced previous cases to support its decision and clarified the necessity of fulfilling the conditions for claiming abatement.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Appellant's compliance with necessary information requirements for certain periods but noted a delay in intimation of factory closure. However, the Tribunal deemed the Appellant eligible for abatement from the date of intimation for periods where closure exceeded seven days. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of penalty imposition, stating that it should be re-considered after recalculating the duty demand based on the abatement granted. The appeal was disposed of with these determinations, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling statutory conditions for claiming abatement and the subsequent penalty implications.