2007 (4) TMI 436 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Unexplained delay in filing appeal, eligibility for abatement, interpretation of Rule 96ZQ(7)(e).

Unexplained delay in filing appeal:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal due to an unexplained delay of 22 days in filing the appeal. However, the Appellate Tribunal decided to hear the appeal itself after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.

Eligibility for abatement:
The case revolved around the appellant's application for closure of their stenter machine with 4 chambers and subsequent payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant should have paid the full amount and then sought abatement later, citing Rule 96ZQ(7)(e). The rule states that when the claim for abatement is for less than one month, the duty must be paid for the entire month first. The Tribunal noted that during the period in question, the stenter with 4 chambers remained closed and the appellants were eligible for abatement. The Tribunal opined that denying the substantial benefit based on a procedural issue would not be justified.

Interpretation of Rule 96ZQ(7)(e):
The Tribunal carefully considered the facts and the interpretation of Rule 96ZQ(7)(e) in the context of the appellant's case. It was acknowledged that the question of whether the appellants should have paid the full amount and then sought a refund was primarily a procedural matter. The Tribunal concluded that the substantial benefit of abatement should not be denied to the appellants based on this procedural ground.

Conclusion:
In light of the above considerations, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and disposed of the stay petition accordingly. The Tribunal's decision was based on the eligibility of the appellants for abatement during the relevant period, despite the procedural question raised by the Commissioner (Appeals).