2003 (10) TMI 350 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on the interpretation of rules regarding the availment of abatement benefit during a factory closure period.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arising from three separate adjudication orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise. The demands were confirmed based on the understanding that there was a prohibition on availing the benefit of abatement if a factory had been closed for more than 7 days during the period in question. The appellant's counsel highlighted Rule 96ZO(3) and argued that the demand was based on an erroneous interpretation of the rule during the disputed period. The rule, as it stood after 1-9-97, only prohibited the benefit of a specific section, not the abatement benefit, during factory closures.

The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and examined the rules applicable before and during the disputed period. It was observed that the rule in force during the relevant time did not contain any prohibition on availing the benefit of abatement. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention and decided to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, staying the recovery pending the appeals.

The annexure to the judgment provided details of the appellants, appeal numbers, duty amounts, penalty amounts, periods in question, show-cause notices (SCNs), and the dates of the orders. The judgment was delivered by Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member of the Tribunal. The decision clarified the correct interpretation of the rules regarding the availment of abatement benefits during factory closure periods, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for the appellants involved in the case.