2003 (11) TMI 544 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal by the Revenue.
2. Allowance of abatement of duty for specific periods.
3. Challenge to the closure of the factory and duty liability.
4. Interpretation of Rule 96ZP regarding abatement for factory closure.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. The original appeal was not signed by the proper officer, leading to the Commissioner filing a fresh appeal with a request to condone the delay. Since the original appeal was filed on time, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was accepted for further proceedings.

2. The Commissioner allowed the respondent's claim of abatement of duty for the periods 1998-99 and 1999-2000 based on Rule 96ZP(2). The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the closure of the factory during these years, and the Commissioner dropped the duty demand accordingly. The Revenue's challenge to this decision was rejected as they failed to provide evidence contrary to the closure of the factory.

3. The Commissioner noted that the respondents had informed about the factory closure and the operation on diesel, not electric, which was considered in dropping the duty demand. The Revenue argued that even with zero production, duty discharge was required, but this argument was dismissed as Rule 96ZP allows abatement for factory closure without specifying a maximum limit.

4. The interpretation of Rule 96ZP regarding abatement for factory closure was crucial. The rule permits abatement for a continuous closure of not less than seven days without specifying a maximum limit. Since the Revenue did not challenge the closure of the factory during the disputed period, the Commissioner's decision to allow abatement was upheld, leading to the rejection of all appeals and the disposal of cross-objections filed by the respondent-company.