2013 (5) TMI 573 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of Notification No.17/2007-CE - related to abatement from payment of duty with respect to rolling mill - Held that - In para-8 of Special Compound Levy Procedure, prescribed under Notification No.17/2007-CE , the refund or demand of duty can be worked out only if the unit availing special compound levy procedure ceases to work or reverse to the normal duty payment procedure. In the instant case, that is not the situation and there is no provision in the prescribed special procedure to ask for rebate of duty paid under compound levy scheme. Thus, order of the Commissioner (A) is upheld and appeal of the appellant is rejected.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification No.17/2007-CE for abatement from duty payment for a rolling mill closed for specific months.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Mr. H.K. Thakur of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad dealt with the interpretation of Notification No.17/2007-CE regarding the abatement from duty payment for a rolling mill closed for specific months. The appellant did not appear, requesting the appeal to be decided on merits. The learned A.R. argued that the notification did not provide for abatement for the months in question. The Appellate Authority, in its Order in Appeal, correctly pointed out that the judgments cited by the appellant were not applicable as they pertained to previous rules where a different procedure was in place. The Special Compound Levy Procedure under the notification only allowed for refund or demand of duty if the unit ceased to work under the special compound levy scheme, which was not the case here. Therefore, the Commissioner's order upholding the denial of abatement was affirmed, and the appeal was rejected.

This judgment highlights the importance of understanding the specific provisions of notifications and procedures under the Central Excise Rules to determine the applicability of abatement or refund of duty payments. It emphasizes that the interpretation of such provisions must be in line with the prescribed procedures and cannot be extended beyond their scope. The decision underscores the need for parties to adhere to the specific requirements laid down in notifications to claim benefits such as abatement or refund of duties, failing which their appeals may be rejected.