2011 (4) TMI 1182 - AT - Central Excise

Additional abatement for 1 more day - delay - monetary limit - Held that - As find that the factory remained closed starting at 11.30 hrs. on 14.12.1998 to 11.00 hrs on 23.12.1998 - further what has been appealed against is a letter from Assistant Commissioner (Technical) and it cannot become an order of the Assistant Commissioner as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - On both the grounds of delay as well as maintainability, the appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have been decided in their favour - Further, also take note of the fact that total amount involved in this case is Rs.21,952/- only with interest and, therefore, amount is less than Rs.50,000/- Held that, the appeal is not maintainable and, accordingly, the same is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Abatement of duty claimed for a specific period.
2. Time bar for filing the appeal.
3. Representation against the decision.
4. Factory closure period.
5. Maintainability of the appeal based on grounds of delay and amount involved.

Abatement of Duty Claim:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing MS Ingots, sought abatement of duty for 9 days within a specific period. The Commissioner sanctioned abatement for 8 days only, prompting the appellants to request additional abatement for the remaining day. The department advised them to appeal as no provision existed for correction or review by the same authority. Subsequently, the appellants filed an appeal challenging the decision.

Time Bar for Filing Appeal:
The appeal was dismissed as time-barred since it was filed against a letter dated 17.7.1999. Despite the appellants' submissions that they had represented against the initial decision and received no response, the appeal was rejected on the grounds of delay in filing.

Representation Against Decision:
The appellants claimed to have sent various letters representing their case, but only in 2002 were they informed that the remedy lay in filing an appeal. The tribunal noted the factory's closure from 14.12.1998 to 23.12.1998 and emphasized that the letter appealed against could not be considered an order, leading to the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner.

Factory Closure Period:
The tribunal observed the factory's closure from 14.12.1998 to 23.12.1998, which was a crucial factor in the case. This period of inactivity played a role in the decision regarding the abatement of duty and the subsequent appeal filed by the appellants.

Maintainability of the Appeal:
Considering the grounds of delay, the nature of the appealed letter, and the amount involved being less than Rs.50,000, the tribunal deemed the appeal not maintainable. The total amount in question was Rs.21,952 with interest, leading to the rejection of the appeal on the basis of maintainability.