2004 (5) TMI 206 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) of the Central Excise Rules regarding counting the period of one month for abatement claim.

Analysis:
The only issue in this appeal revolved around the interpretation of Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) of the Central Excise Rules concerning the calculation of the period of one month for abatement claims. The appellant's stenter was closed on 1-4-99 at 11.30 hours and reopened on 1-5-99 at 11.15 hours. The appellant sought abatement for the entire month of April 1999. However, the Commissioner, in the impugned order, ruled that since the actual closure period was less than a month, the duty for the entire month of April 1999 must be paid initially, with a subsequent claim for abatement for 29 days only.

The appellants argued that as per Trade Notice No. 88/99 issued by the Commissionerate, closure should occur during normal office hours. Relying on this notice, they closed the stenter within office hours on 1-4-99 and reopened it on 1-5-99. They contended that the total period from 1-4-99 to 1-5-99 should be considered as one month, and they should not be required to pay duty upfront and then claim abatement as per Rule 96ZQ(7)(f). The appellants also cited precedents such as Bal Krishna Textile Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad and Janki Processors Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur to support their argument.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the Trade Notice mandated closure during office hours, which the appellants complied with by closing and reopening the stenter within office hours. Following the precedent set by the Tribunal in Bal Krishna Textile Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the condition of closure for one month under Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) had been met. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, directing that abatement for the entire month of April should be allowed to the appellants without requiring them to pre-deposit the duty. Thus, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants.