2003 (3) TMI 484 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of abatement claim under Rule 96ZO(2) by the Commissioner based on procedural grounds.
- Consideration of certificate issued by UP State Electricity Board as evidence for abatement claim.
- Failure of Commissioner to properly follow precedent set in a similar case involving the same certificate.
- Non-fulfillment of mandatory requirements for abatement claim under Rule 96ZO(2).

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the rejection of an abatement claim by the Commissioner under Rule 96ZO(2) due to procedural non-compliance. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing MS ingots, closed their unit temporarily due to electric supply disconnection. The initial claim for abatement was rejected by the Commissioner citing non-submission of electric meter readings, stock balance, and closure declaration as required under the rule.

Upon appeal to the Tribunal, the matter was remanded for further examination. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering certificates issued by government departments as evidence for abatement claims. However, in the subsequent order, the Commissioner again rejected the claim, stating non-fulfillment of procedural requirements under Rule 96ZO(2).

The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner failed to consider a certificate from the UP State Electricity Board certifying the unit's closure due to power disconnection. Reference was made to a previous order by the same Commissioner accepting a similar certificate as substantive evidence in another case. The Commissioner's failure to follow this precedent in the present case was highlighted.

After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not properly evaluate the evidentiary value of the Electricity Board's certificate in line with the precedent set in the earlier order. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to consider the certificate seriously and provide the appellant with a fair hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, stressing the importance of following established precedents and procedural requirements for abatement claims under Rule 96ZO(2).