2000 (3) TMI 81 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of duty abatement for a specific period.

Analysis:
The appellants, manufacturers of M.S. Ingots and Runners and Risers under the Compounded Levy Scheme, sought abatement of duty for a continuous closure period under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules. The dispute arose when the Commissioner disallowed the abatement claim, citing non-fulfillment of conditions. The appellants notified the closure and restarting of production to the Assistant Commissioner, with copies to the Superintendent of Central Excise, as required by the rules. The Commissioner contended that the intimation should have been directly given to the Assistant Commissioner on the respective dates, which the appellants failed to do. However, the appellants argued that compliance was met through the Range office and courier services on the same days. The Commissioner maintained that the conditions were unfulfilled due to delayed receipt of intimation, leading to the rejection of the abatement claim.

Upon review, the appellate tribunal found that the appellants had indeed fulfilled all conditions for abatement of duty. The tribunal noted that the Assistant Commissioner received the closure and restarting intimation letters with necessary details and declarations, and the belated receipt of resumption intimation did not prejudice the Revenue. The tribunal observed that the appellants' factory showed no production activity during the claimed period, supported by RG-I register extracts. It was also noted that the Assistant Commissioner's visit during that time did not reveal any production activity. Consequently, the tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to abatement of duty for the continuous non-production period, as all conditions were met according to Rule 96ZO (2). The tribunal criticized the lower authority for failing to recognize the appellants' right to abatement and directed the Commissioner to allow abatement for the specified 8-day period, proportional to the annual production capacity determined by him. The tribunal rejected the strict interpretation urged by the Revenue's representative and overturned the Commissioner's order, granting relief to the appellants.