2000 (9) TMI 329 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of abatement claimed by the appellants for a specific period.
2. Requirement of electric meter reading for claiming abatement under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Dispute regarding the closure of the factory during the claimed period.
4. Arguments presented by both the appellants and the respondent regarding the abatement claim.
5. Lack of supporting evidence leading to the rejection of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the disallowance of abatement claimed by the appellants for the period from 1-9-1997 to 19-9-1997. The Commissioner rejected the abatement, leading to the appellants filing an appeal against this decision.

2. The case revolves around the requirement of providing the electric meter reading to claim abatement under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants failed to furnish the meter reading on the date of breakdown or closure of their furnace, which was a crucial condition for claiming abatement.

3. The appellants argued that they had informed the authority about the breakdown of the furnace on 31-8-1997 and that the factory did not produce any excisable goods during the material period. They claimed that the factory remained closed until it was repaired and made usable only on or after 22-9-1997, supported by a letter from experts who rectified the defects.

4. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the stoppage of the factory should be supported by the electric meter reading to determine if the unit was closed during the claimed period. They argued that there was no evidence to prove the factory's closure during the relevant period, despite the Superintendent's visit to verify the physical stock available.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, emphasized the significance of the electric meter reading in establishing the closure of a manufacturing unit for excisable goods. Since the appellants failed to provide the meter reading or any supporting documents indicating the factory's closure during the claimed period, the Tribunal found the abatement claim unsubstantiated and rejected the appeal.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the rejection of the abatement claim.