2002 (4) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for abatement on closure of manufacturing unit for multiple periods.

Analysis:
The appellants manufacture M.S. Ingots subject to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 outlines conditions for claiming abatement for closure periods. The appellants applied for abatement, but the Commissioner disallowed their claim for 21 days due to late submission of closure intimation. The Commissioner considered the delayed submission as the actual closure date, leading to denial of abatement. The appellants closed their factory just before midnight but submitted intimation the next day. The Commissioner upheld the denial, stating the late intimation violated Rule 96ZO(2)(a). The appellants' planned closures were evident, making the delayed intimation non-compliant with the rule. The denial of abatement for 21 days was deemed appropriate, with no grounds for interference. The appeal was rejected, finding no merit in challenging the Commissioner's decision.

This judgment clarifies the importance of timely compliance with statutory provisions governing abatement claims for closure periods. The ruling emphasizes adherence to Rule 96ZO(2)(a) requiring manufacturers to inform authorities about closure either before or on the closure date. Failure to meet this requirement can result in the denial of abatement benefits, as demonstrated in the present case. The judgment underscores the significance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in excise matters to avoid adverse consequences such as forfeiture of benefits. Manufacturers must ensure timely communication with excise authorities to maintain eligibility for abatement claims during closure periods, as highlighted in this decision.