2003 (1) TMI 592 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Denial of abatement of Central Excise duty for periods of factory closure; Rejection based on failure to satisfy conditions of Rule 96ZO; Dispute over timely intimation and declaration of factory closure.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots, faced denial of their abatement claim for Central Excise duty during two periods of factory closure. The dispute centered on the rejection of their claim due to failure to meet the conditions of Rule 96ZO, specifically regarding the declaration of continuous factory closure with detailed time and date information.

2. The appellants contended that the rejection of their abatement claims was unjust as they had provided all necessary information in their intimation, including details of closure and re-start times, stock of finished goods, and electricity meter readings. They argued that the nominal electricity consumption during closure indicated no production occurred. Regarding the objection on delayed intimation for the second period, they highlighted the exclusion of intervening holidays and referenced a precedent where filing on the next working day was deemed acceptable.

3. The Learned DR emphasized that the objections raised aligned with the Rule's requirements, stressing the need for a specific declaration of continuous factory closure during the abatement period. Additionally, it was noted that the appellants could have filed the intimation even on holidays in the Commissionerate's Control Room.

4. Upon reviewing the records and submissions, the Tribunal found the objection of delay due to holidays unsustainable based on a precedent. The technical nature of the objection regarding the continuous closure declaration was also noted, as the appellants had provided comprehensive details indicating no production during the closure periods. Consequently, the denial of abatement on these grounds was deemed unjustified.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that they were rightfully entitled to the abatement claimed. The impugned orders rejecting the abatement were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellants.