9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (10) TMI 558 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Availability of abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7)(g) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Analysis: In the appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Processors Ltd., the main issue was whether they were entitled to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7)(g) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant, represented by Shri K.K. Anand, argued that they are independent processors of man-made fabrics and had filed an abatement claim for non-payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed abatement for a specific period but disallowed it for another period, citing the interpretation of a complete calendar month. The appellant highlighted a previous Tribunal decision in favor of another company, M/s. Janki Processors Ltd., to support their claim for abatement. The respondent, represented by Ms. Charul Barnwal, contended that as per Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, duty was required to be debited by specific dates each month. It was argued that the appellant should have deposited the duty by the 15th of the month and could not claim abatement for a period like November where duty was not paid on time due to unforeseen circumstances. The Tribunal, after considering both arguments, referred to a previous decision regarding M/s. Janki Processors Ltd. The Tribunal held that Rule 96ZQ(7)(g) states that an independent processor claiming abatement for a period of one month or more is not required to pay duty in advance for that period. The Tribunal clarified that the calculation of one month does not necessarily mean a calendar month, as interpreted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the factory was closed for more than one month, the provisions of the clause were deemed applicable, leading to the allowance of the appeal filed by the appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal, following the precedent set in the case of M/s. Janki Processors Ltd., allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Processors Ltd., ruling in favor of the appellants' entitlement to abatement of duty for the relevant period.
|
