Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2013 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (11) TMI 749 - HC - Central Excise


Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, eligibility for abatement of duty under Compound Levy Scheme, compliance with Rule 96ZO (2) of Central Excise Rules, alternative method of assessment under Rule 96ZO (3), interpretation of legal provisions for claiming abatement.

Delay in filing the appeal:
The central excise appeal was filed with a delay of 6 days, attributing the delay to Holi holidays. The delay condonation application supported by an affidavit stated valid grounds for condonation, which were considered good and sufficient by the court. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Eligibility for abatement of duty under Compound Levy Scheme:
The central excise department raised a question of law regarding the eligibility of a manufacturer under the Compound Levy Scheme to avail abatement of duty when using a DG Set without a meter for manufacturing. The Tribunal observed that the factory was not functioning during the relevant period, and the appellant had fulfilled all requirements except providing electricity meter reading, which was deemed a technical ground for rejection. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

Compliance with Rule 96ZO (2) of Central Excise Rules:
Rule 96ZO (2) requires the appellant to intimate the reading of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner for claiming abatement. However, in this case, it was established that the factory was not running during the relevant period and did not have an electricity connection. The court found the insistence on providing electricity meter reading for abatement of liability to be absurd when the factory was solely using a DG set. The circumstances of the factory not running during inspection and timely intimation were deemed sufficient to grant abatement for the relevant period.

Alternative method of assessment under Rule 96ZO (3):
Rule 96ZO (3) provides for an alternative method of assessment, with conditions requiring electricity meter reading for claiming abatement. The court emphasized that the law does not demand compliance with provisions that are impossible, such as providing electricity meter reading when the factory operates solely on a DG set. The court concluded that the circumstances, including the factory not running during inspection and timely intimation, warranted granting abatement for the relevant period.

Interpretation of legal provisions for claiming abatement:
The court determined that no question of law arose for consideration in the central excise appeal, ultimately dismissing the central excise appeal based on the findings and analysis of the case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates