2007 (1) TMI 426 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order disallowing abatement claims and directing payment of excise duty u/s Rule 96ZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Summary:
The appellant, a manufacturer of non-alloy steel ingots/billets, challenged the Commissioner's order disallowing abatement claims and directing excise duty payment for the period of unit closure. The appellant opted for lumpsum duty payment based on Annual Production Capacity. Claims for abatement were filed for specific periods. The Commissioner found non-compliance with mandatory declaration requirements under Rule 96ZO(2)(c) and denied abatement claims for all periods.

The appellant argued substantial compliance with intimation and declaration requirements, contending procedural lapses. The department maintained the mandatory nature of intimation and declaration provisions. The record showed intimation of closure dates for all periods claimed for abatement.

Specifically, for each period claimed:
- For 4-9-98 period, closure and restart intimation was sent, verified by officer.
- For 30-9-98 to 13-10-98, closure intimation sent, officer verified closure.
- For 27-10-98 to 21-11-98, closure and restart intimation sent, verified by officer.
- For 18-12-98 to 31-12-98, closure and restart intimation sent, verified by officer. Daily log book entries confirmed compliance with closure and restart dates.

The Tribunal found substantial compliance with Rule 96ZO requirements, including intimation of closure and restart dates, electricity meter readings, and stock balances. The denial of abatement claims was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.