9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking a direction to Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding abatement claims disallowed by the adjudicating authority. Analysis: The respondent-assessee, engaged in manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots/billets, claimed abatement for a specific period under Section 3A(3) of the Act read with Rule 96ZO(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The adjudicating authority disallowed the abatement claim for part of the period, directing payment of duty and interest. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, citing closure of the furnace on a Sunday and a subsequent holiday, supported by a telegram to the competent authority as per Trade Notice 31/99. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the impossibility of personal delivery on closure days and the conformity of the telegram with the Trade Notice. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting the adequacy of the telegram as per the Trade Notice and the absence of any illegality or infirmity in the Tribunal's acceptance of the appeal. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to direct the Tribunal to refer the question of law for the Court's opinion.
|
