2005 (1) TMI 300 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Abatement claims disallowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana for specific periods.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved two appeals against the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana. The first appeal, No. 1593/04-C, challenged the disallowance of abatement claims for certain periods, while the second appeal, No. 33539/04, contested the duty demand confirmation against the appellants for specific periods. The learned Counsel argued that the abatement claims were wrongly disallowed as the furnace closure was intimated to the competent authority, and the Revenue did not dispute the closure period. On the contrary, the learned SDR supported the impugned order by citing a legal precedent. After reviewing the records, the Tribunal found merit in the Counsel's contention. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing non-alloy ingots/billets and had two furnaces, each with separate records and electricity connections. The department verified these records and received intimation when a furnace was closed. The Tribunal disagreed with the adjudicating authority's decision to disallow abatement claims for certain periods, emphasizing the independent status of each furnace.

The Tribunal noted that both furnaces operated independently, with separate production records and electricity connections. The appellants consistently maintained separate records for each furnace, which were verified by department officials. The department also acknowledged this setup during visits to the factory premises. The Tribunal highlighted that each furnace was marked as unit A and B, with separate registrations granted from a specific date. The adjudicating authority's decision to disallow abatement claims for periods when a furnace was closed was deemed incorrect as the furnaces were treated as distinct units. The legal precedent cited by the authority was deemed inapplicable due to the unique circumstances of this case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order disallowing abatement claims and allowed them for the relevant periods.

Regarding a specific period's abatement claim not considered by the adjudicating authority, the Tribunal directed a reexamination before raising a fresh demand. The duty amount payable by the appellants was calculated after adjusting actual duty paid and allowed abatements. The Tribunal upheld a duty liability of a specific amount and instructed the adjudicating authority to decide on the pending abatement claim before raising further demands. The impugned order in one appeal was set aside, granting consequential relief, while in the other appeal, the duty liability was upheld with specific instructions. The penalty imposed on the appellants was entirely set aside, and both appeals were disposed of accordingly.