2002 (3) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Abatement claim under Rule 96ZO for closure of furnace on specific days.

Analysis:
The appellants, manufacturers of ingots of non-alloy steel, operated under the Compounded Levy Scheme, paying duty under Rule 96ZO with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The issue arose when the Commissioner of Central Excise allowed abatement for only 7 out of 9 days of furnace closure, denying the claim for 25-1-98 and 26-1-98 due to late intimation. The appellants argued that they sent a telegram on 25-1-98, a Sunday, and hand-delivered a detailed letter on 27-1-98, meeting the requirements of Rule 96ZO(2). The appellants relied on a Trade Notice to support their claim that the telegram constituted valid intimation. The Commissioner, represented by the JDR, upheld the denial of abatement for the two days.

Upon review, the Member (J) found the denial unjustified, considering the closure on 25-1-98 (Sunday) and 26-1-98 (Republic Day) made it impossible for personal delivery of intimation to the Asstt. Commissioner. The appellants' timely telegram on 25-1-98, followed by a detailed letter on 27-1-98, aligned with the Trade Notice's spirit. Notably, the department did not contest proper intimation to the Central Excise Range Superintendent. The Member (J) concluded that the appellants fulfilled the requirements of Rule 96ZO(2) and should not be denied abatement for the two days based on the Commissioner's reasoning.

In light of the above, the impugned order denying abatement for 25-1-98 and 26-1-98 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering practical constraints faced by taxpayers during closures on holidays and weekends, ensuring fair treatment in abatement claims under Rule 96ZO.