2002 (8) TMI 173 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for abatement under the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.
2. Compliance with Rule 96ZO (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for availing abatement.
3. Denial of abatement by the Commissioner based on non-fulfillment of conditions.
4. Intimation requirements for closure periods and eligibility for abatement.
5. Procedural compliance as a substantive requirement for claiming abatement.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of MS ingots, sought abatement under the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The duty was discharged based on production capacity determined under the compounded levy scheme.
2. The Commissioner denied the abatement claim due to non-fulfillment of conditions specified under Rule 96ZO (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The manufacturer failed to provide complete information about closure periods, including electricity meter readings and stock positions.
3. The denial was based on specific reasons for each closure period, such as incomplete intimation, variations in stock positions and meter readings, and closure of only one furnace instead of the entire factory.
4. The Tribunal found that procedural compliance, including sending intimation to the Assistant Commissioner, was a substantive requirement for claiming abatement. The case was remanded back to the Commissioner for redetermination during periods where proper intimations were given.
5. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements for claiming abatement, as established in previous judgments. The appellant's plea of ignorance of procedures was not accepted as a valid reason for non-compliance.

In conclusion, the appeal was partially allowed, and the case was remanded for redetermination of abatement during specific closure periods where proper intimations were provided, highlighting the significance of procedural compliance in claiming abatement under the Central Excise Rules.