2005 (8) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability determination based on Annual Capacity of Production.
2. Claim for abatement from payment of duty under Rule 96ZO.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta Commissionerate, regarding duty liability determination for the year 1999-2000. The appellants were paying duty based on their Annual Capacity of Production as per Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner had determined the duty liability at Rs. 5 lakhs per month. However, the appellants claimed abatement from payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) due to factory closures. The Commissioner rejected the claim citing non-fulfillment of certain conditions.

2. The appellants contended that they had fulfilled all conditions by intimating closure and restarting of production to the authorities as required by the rules. Despite the acknowledgment delay in the Divisional Office, the appellants had sent the necessary intimation to the Superintendent, who acknowledged the receipt promptly. The Tribunal noted that the offices of the Assistant Commissioner and the Superintendent were in the same premises, and the appellants had provided copies of letters as evidence of compliance with the rules. Considering these facts, the Tribunal held that the appellants had indeed fulfilled the conditions of Rule 96ZO, and therefore, allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements under the Central Excise Rules, especially in matters concerning duty liability determination and claims for abatement. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the significance of providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate adherence to the prescribed rules and procedures, even in cases where delays or administrative practices may cause challenges in acknowledgment of communications.