2007 (10) TMI 71 - AT - Central Excise

Not 43/98 issued prescribing Compounded Levy Scheme Abatement given when stenter remain closed and closure of the same should be intimated to Dept to get the stenter sealed Abatement of duty is permissible from the period of original sealing to sealing (as per procedure prescribed)

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of compounded levy scheme under Notification No.43/98-CE(NT)
Validity of abatement for closure of stenter machine
Dispute over sealing dates and benefit of abatement
Applicability of CBEC Circular No.485 dt.15.9.99
Jurisdictional superintendent's role in sealing process

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the compounded levy scheme under Notification No.43/98-CE(NT) and the abatement for closure of a stenter machine. The scheme provided for abatement from duty when a stenter was closed for 7 days or more, with the condition of sealing and intimation. The respondent intimated and sealed the stenter on 14.12.98, seeking abatement from 16.12.98. The original authority demanded duty, penalty, and interest, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on CBEC Circular No.485, granting abatement regardless of duty payment timing.

The department argued that the sealing on 14.12.98 should not be considered as the scheme was effective from 16.12.98, seeking modification for the period before 31.12.98. The Tribunal noted the scheme's public notification on 10-12-98, with abatement starting from 16.12.98. It acknowledged the sealing on 14.12.98 and the resealing on 31.12.98, emphasizing the benefit of abatement for the period in question. The Tribunal found no issue with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and rejected the department's appeal.

The judgment highlighted the importance of following prescribed procedures for sealing stenter machines and the significance of seeking abatement under the compounded levy scheme. It clarified that the benefit of abatement could not be denied based on technicalities, emphasizing the respondent's compliance with sealing requirements. The Tribunal's decision upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling, ensuring the respondent's entitlement to abatement for the specified period. The case underscored the need for adherence to legal provisions and circulars in matters concerning duty abatement and sealing procedures under relevant notifications.