2008 (9) TMI 393 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order dismissing appeal and declining rectification application under Central Excise Act, 1944 - Substantial questions of law raised regarding abatement claim, denial of natural justice, and penalty disallowance.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal filed under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the confirmation of the Commissioner's order, denial of abatement claim, denial of natural justice, and penalty disallowance. The appellant manufactured M.S. Ingots subject to Central Excise Duty at compounding rates as per the Act. The relevant provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules were cited, requiring the manufacturer to inform the authorities about closure and restarting of production to claim abatement.

The appellant's abatement claim was disallowed due to late submission of intimation by one day, resulting in the deletion of 21 days from the claim amounting to Rs. 3,43,700. The Tribunal's order highlighted that the appellants closed their factory just before midnight of the claimed abatement date but submitted intimation the next day, leading to disallowance of the claim for that specific day in each instance. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders and dismissed the appeal, stating that the questions of law raised by the appellant did not arise based on the circumstances presented in the case.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal against the order declining the rectification application and confirming the denial of the abatement claim. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the procedural requirements for claiming abatement under the Central Excise Rules and highlighted the consequences of late submission of intimation in such cases.