2005 (12) TMI 503 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Abatement claims rejection under the Annual Capacity of Production Scheme.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of abatement claims by the appellants under the Annual Capacity of Production Scheme. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel, filed for abatement due to closures exceeding seven days during 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The adjudicating authority rejected the claims citing non-adherence to Rule 96ZP conditions. The appellant contended that they followed the rules correctly and submitted required intimations. The dispute centered on whether the rejection was justified.

The key issue revolved around Rule 96ZP(2) provisions for claiming abatement based on non-production for seven days. The appellant argued compliance with the rule's conditions, providing documentary evidence. The adjudicating authority's findings highlighted failures to meet specific conditions for closures in 1998-99, leading to claim rejections. However, the judge noted discrepancies in the authority's approach, emphasizing the proper submission of required documents for 1999-2000. The judge found the rejection of 1999-2000 claims without considering the submitted documents unjust.

The judge criticized the authority's strict interpretation, emphasizing the appellants' substantial compliance with the rules. The judge deemed it unfair to deny abatement due to minor errors like typographical mistakes or missing formal declarations. The judge concluded that the rejection of abatement claims for both years was unwarranted. Consequently, the order-in-original was set aside, and the abatement claims for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were allowed, detailing the closure periods and total days eligible for abatement. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants.