2004 (2) TMI 615 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order granting abatement claim for a specific period due to breakdown of equipment; Dispute over the date of closure for abatement calculation; Validity of order communicated by Superintendent instead of Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order granting abatement to the respondent for a specific period due to a breakdown of equipment. The respondent, a manufacturer of Ingots, claimed abatement as they did not manufacture goods on certain dates due to a transformer breakdown. The Revenue argued that the abatement claim was wrongly granted as the electricity meter reading was not provided on the first day of breakdown, leading to a dispute over the calculation of closure days for abatement eligibility.

2. The assessee contended that they informed the authorities about the breakdown on the first day itself and requested an inspection due to the meter reading being not visible. The authorities visited the factory the next day and noted the reading in the log register. The respondent then formally intimated about the breakdown and subsequent actions. The assessee relied on a tribunal decision stating that failure to provide meter reading on the first day does not invalidate an abatement claim if waiting for a certificate from the Electricity Board.

3. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument, noting that the assessee had promptly informed about the breakdown and the meter reading issue to the authorities. The inspection and reading were done the next day, and the reading was duly endorsed by the Superintendent. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the abatement claim could not be denied based on the technicality of not providing the meter reading on the first day of breakdown.

4. Regarding the contention that the order communicated by the Superintendent instead of the Commissioner vitiated the proceedings, the Tribunal held that an order passed on file is valid and in accordance with the rules. The communication by the Superintendent to the assessee was deemed as a valid intimation of the order. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the order granting abatement to the respondent for the period in question.