2002 (8) TMI 767 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for abatement of duty disallowed by Commissioner of Central Excise for a specific period.

Analysis:
The appellants, operating an induction furnace unit, filed a claim for abatement of duty for a period as one furnace remained closed. The adjudicating authority partly allowed the claim initially, which was challenged by the appellants before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision. The Commissioner rejected the claim based on non-fulfillment of statutory conditions under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Rule 96ZO(2) of Central Excise Rules.

The appellants contended that the abatement should not have been disallowed as it was previously allowed by the Assistant Commissioner for the same period. They argued that the conditions under Section 3A were satisfied as one furnace remained closed. However, the Commissioner rejected the claim, leading to the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that for abatement, the entire factory must remain closed for a specified period, as per the proviso of Section 3A. The argument that each furnace should be considered a factory was dismissed. The judgment cited a previous case where a similar argument was rejected, emphasizing that abatement applies to the entire factory, not individual units.

The Tribunal also disregarded the order of the Assistant Commissioner, as it became void after the fresh show cause notice was issued post remand. Since the statutory conditions were not met, with only one furnace closed and no compliance with Rule 96ZO(2), the Commissioner's decision to disallow the abatement claim was upheld. The Tribunal found no legal flaw in the Commissioner's order and dismissed the appeal of the appellants.