2003 (10) TMI 522 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Validity of abatement of duty claim for the period 27-5-1998 to 13-10-1998.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Compliance with Rule 96ZO(2): The appeal concerns the validity of the abatement of duty claim for a specific period. The Commissioner allowed the abatement claim of the respondents after finding that they had complied with Rule 96ZO(2). The respondents had informed about the closure of their factory due to issues with UPSEB, provided stock details, and submitted a certificate from the Executive Engineer regarding the disconnection of their electric connection. The Department did not deny receiving the closure intimation. The Commissioner thoroughly examined the grounds raised by the Department for denying the abatement claim and concluded that the respondents had fulfilled the requirements of Rule 96ZO(2) in all aspects. The argument that the electricity meter readings were not provided on the closure and re-start dates was dismissed in light of the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, leading to the confirmation of the abatement claim.

2. Decision Based on Commissioner's Findings: The learned JDR for the appellants contended that the respondents did not meet the Rule 96ZO(2) requirement, but the Commissioner's detailed reasoning in the impugned order supported the respondents' compliance. The Commissioner's analysis of the evidence, including the closure intimation, stock details, and the certificate from the Executive Engineer, led to the conclusion that the abatement claim was valid. The Commissioner's findings were deemed well-supported, with no substantial grounds to overturn them. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld as valid, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The judgment highlights the importance of fulfilling statutory requirements and providing substantial evidence to support duty abatement claims in customs and excise matters.

In summary, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, upheld the validity of the abatement of duty claim for the specified period, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory rules and providing substantial evidence. The Commissioner's detailed analysis and findings supported the respondents' fulfillment of Rule 96ZO(2) requirements, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.