2000 (11) TMI 447 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Abatement claim for central excise duty during factory closure period.

Analysis:
1. Abatement Claim Disallowance: The appeal filed by M/s. Shivansi Ferrous (P) Ltd. concerns the abatement in the payment of central excise duty during the factory closure period. The Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed the abatement claim citing non-compliance with Rule 96-ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The grounds for rejection included failure to provide the electricity meter reading when production stopped, lack of meter reading and stock position details at the time of production restart, and missing declaration as required when informing about factory closure.

2. Appellant's Submission: Shri Amit Awasthi, representing the appellants, argued that the electric meter was sealed by the State Electricity Authorities, making it inaccessible to them for readings. He contended that necessary information from the State Electricity Authorities was submitted and that procedural lapses, such as delayed stock position submission, should be condoned. He referenced Tribunal decisions where similar matters were remanded for verification of closure through collateral evidence.

3. Respondent's Argument: Shri K. Panchasaran, for the Respondents, maintained that the Trade Notice requirements were fundamental to the abatement scheme and were not fulfilled. Consequently, the rejection of the abatement claim for the specified period was justified by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur.

4. Verification and Typing Error: The written submissions revealed discrepancies in dates related to factory closure, with a typographical error in the claimed abatement period. The lack of discussion on these communications and the closure status of the unit, along with the inaccessibility of the electric meter for reading, required further verification.

5. Precedent and Remand: The appellant cited Tribunal decisions like M/s. Raj Ratan Castings (P) Ltd. and others, where matters with similar circumstances were remanded for re-consideration of abatement claims during actual factory closure periods. The Tribunal emphasized the need for collateral evidence, including government department certificates, to form a well-founded decision.

6. Remand Order: The judgment remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for allowing the appellants to present necessary material. The Commissioner was directed to issue a speaking appealable order following principles of natural justice. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering collateral evidence for a comprehensive decision-making process, beyond mere departmental certificates.