2015 (7) TMI 1159 - HC - Central Excise

Abatement under sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - condition (e) under sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO - 5 MT furnace - shutting down for furnace for seven continuous days - Held that - the manufacturer suppose not to produce during any continuous period of not less than seven days. The appellant s furnace had functioned upto 12. hours on 22-10-1999 and from 12.30 hours to 24 hours on 29-10-1999. Therefore, the original authority had rightly excluded both the dates as the furnace had functioned on those days. Excluding those days, it was found that the furnace was not shut down for a continuous period of seven days and therefore, the appellant does not fall within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for abatement of Central Excise Duty under Rule 96ZO(2)

Analysis:
The appellant claimed abatement of Central Excise Duty for their furnace shutdown based on Rule 96ZO(2). The Commissioner rejected the claim stating the furnace was not continuously shut down for seven days as required by the rule. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision. The appellant contended that the factory was shut down for seven continuous days and should be entitled to the rebate. The appellant relied on a legal case to support their claim.

Rule Interpretation:
Rule 96ZO(2) outlines conditions for claiming abatement under the Central Excise Act. It requires a manufacturer not to produce for a continuous period of at least seven days to be eligible for abatement. The rule specifies various conditions to be fulfilled for claiming abatement.

Court's Decision:
The Court found that the furnace was not shut down for a continuous period of seven days as required by the rule. The appellant's furnace operated on certain days, leading to the exclusion of those days from the shutdown period calculation. The Court noted that the judgment cited by the appellant's counsel supported the department's contention. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law to warrant interference.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant did not meet the criteria for abatement under Rule 96ZO(2). The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with the specific conditions outlined in the Central Excise Act for claiming abatement. The appellant's argument regarding the seven-day shutdown was not substantiated based on the factual findings. The dismissal of the appeal was made without any cost implications, and related petitions were also dismissed accordingly.