2004 (6) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of abatement claim under Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original rejecting the abatement claim under Rule 96ZP. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter for fresh decision after allowing the appellant to present their defense. The appellant argued that procedural lapses should not deny the benefit of abatement, citing relevant case law. The appellant contended that despite timely intimation to the concerned party, the benefit was denied by the Commissioner. The appellant's representative prayed for the appeal to be allowed.

Analysis:
The Revenue argued that the intimation of closure and resumption of production must be given to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as per Rule 96ZP. They pointed out discrepancies in the information provided by the appellant, including different meter readings of electricity consumption. The Revenue supported the Commissioner's rejection of the abatement claim, asserting that the appeal should be dismissed.

Analysis:
The appellant's representative submitted Annexure-A detailing the dates of intimation of closure and resumption of production to the Range Office and Divisional Office. It was revealed that on multiple occasions, the intimation was not provided in a timely manner to the concerned officials. The appellant admitted that some intimations were late. The Tribunal noted that the intimations were given after the production had commenced, contrary to Rule 96ZP requirements. The Commissioner's decision to reject the abatement claim was upheld, emphasizing that the appellants had not complied with the necessary procedures. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.