2004 (7) TMI 229 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur regarding abatement claim for the manufacture of M.S. Ingots of non-alloy steel under the compounded levy scheme.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a dispute over the entitlement of abatement claimed by the appellants, who were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots of non-alloy steel under the compounded levy scheme as per Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue contended that the manufacturer must intimate the Revenue Authorities about factory closure, stock position, and electricity meter reading to qualify for abatement. The Revenue argued that the appellants did not comply with these requirements as they informed about factory closure on the same day it occurred and failed to provide stock position and meter reading details.

The respondents, on the other hand, explained that their factory was closed due to the disconnection of the electric meter, preventing them from informing the Revenue Authorities prior to closure. They claimed to have sent the stock position information to the Range Superintendent and highlighted that the electricity connection was disconnected during the disputed period, indicating no production activity. The U.P. State Electricity Board issued a certificate confirming the power supply disconnection during the relevant period.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the respondents had informed the Revenue authorities about the factory closure due to electricity meter disconnection and had sent the stock position details to the Range Superintendent. The certificate from the electricity authorities supported the claim of power disconnection during the disputed period, indicating no manufacturing activity. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of manufacturing during that time. The respondents admitted to resuming production on a specific date and did not claim abatement for that day.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the respondents were not entitled to abatement for the day production resumed, as they did not engage in manufacturing activity during the disputed period. The impugned order was modified to exclude abatement for that specific day, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed due to the lack of evidence supporting manufacturing activity during the contentious period.