2015 (11) TMI 1641 - AT - Central Excise

Abatement - N/N. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27-2-2010 - denial on the ground that the production activity was stopped on 13-9-2011 and clearances were made on 17-9-2011, which is after 4 days of the commencement of the closure of the factory - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal in favor of the respondent, holding that the respondent herein has substantially complied with the requirement of the aforementioned notification and that non-filing of intimation with the Department within time is a procedural lapse, for which the substantive right conferred in the statute cannot be whittled down - respondent shall be eligible for the abatement benefit provided under the statute since the substantive part of the notification has been duly complied with - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Abatement claim rejection by Central Excise Department.
2. Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.).
3. Appeal against adjudication order before Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Decision of Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondent.
5. Appeal by Revenue before Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi.

Abatement Claim Rejection:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing 'Khaini', filed an abatement claim application under Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.) due to factory shutdown. The claim was rejected by the Central Excise Department citing production activity stoppage and clearance after closure commencement. The denial was also based on the lack of prior intimation to the department. The adjudication order denying the claim was appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Compliance with Notification Conditions:
The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, allowing the appeal in favor of the respondent. It was found that the appellant had substantially complied with the notification requirements, with a minor delay in goods removal not prejudicing the department's interests. The delay was considered an innocuous non-adherence, and the substantive right to abatement was upheld despite procedural lapses.

Appeal and Decision:
The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision. It was concluded that the respondent was eligible for abatement benefit as the substantive part of the notification had been duly complied with. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, thus affirming the eligibility of the respondent for the abatement benefit provided under the statute.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi upheld the decision in favor of the respondent, emphasizing substantial compliance with notification requirements and the preservation of substantive rights despite procedural lapses. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the eligibility of the respondent for the abatement benefit.