9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Abatement of duty for closure of the unit with reference to determination of Annual Production Capacity.
In this case, the appellant argued that the unit was closed for more than 7 days and claimed abatement of duty for the closure period. The appellant contended that the closure was duly intimated, even though certain documentation like the reading of the electricity meter and balance of stock at the time of closure were not submitted. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal order in a similar case where abatement was allowed under similar circumstances. The appellant emphasized that the procedural lapses should not result in denying substantial benefits. On the other hand, the learned JDR argued that the abatement claim required the submission of certain documentation to prevent fraud and collusion. The Commissioner also highlighted the importance of verifying the genuineness of the claim and cited relevant case laws to support the mandatory nature of the conditions for granting concessions. The Member (J) carefully considered the arguments presented. The Member acknowledged the relevance of the case law cited by the appellant and found merit in the argument that substantial benefits should not be denied due to procedural lapses. The Member noted that the closure was duly intimated, even though there were deficiencies in the submitted documentation. Ultimately, the Member accepted the appellant's contention, aligning with the previous ruling and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The Member emphasized that in such cases, where the closure was properly intimated, procedural lapses should not overshadow the entitlement to abatement, as long as the essential requirements were met.
|
