2001 (1) TMI 406 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty based on denial of abatement.
2. Discrepancy in counting abatement days due to the receipt of intimation regarding closure and re-start.
3. Interpretation of Rule 96ZO(2) regarding exclusion of days for abatement calculation.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, represented by Shri J.S. Agarwal, argued for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, claiming denial of abatement for the period their factory remained closed. The appellant had sent intimation of closure to the Divisional Office and Range Office of Central Excise. The counsel contended that as per law, the intimation should be sent to the Divisional office with a copy to the Range Superintendent. The appellant submitted a chart showing the denial of abatement even when the closure notice was for seven days or more. Reference was made to a judgment by the South Regional Bench supporting abatement from the date of intimation to authorities, even with delays. The counsel requested either waiver of pre-deposit or a remand for compliance with Rule 96ZO(2)(a) for verification.

2. The Respondent, Shri S.K. Das, opposed the request, highlighting the distance between the Deputy Commissioner's office and the factory location. He argued that previously, the benefit of the date of intimation received in the Range office was extended to the appellant, but with the office now located at Bhiwadi, only the date of intimation received in the Divisional office was considered. The Respondent mentioned a mix-up in counting abatement days and suggested a re-examination by the Deputy Commissioner.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, noted a discrepancy in the exclusion of days for abatement calculation. It was observed that while counting the days, only one of the two days of intimation receipt was excluded. Referring to the judgment of the South Regional Bench, it was clarified that only one day should be excluded for abatement calculation. Consequently, the Tribunal waived pre-deposit of duty and remanded the appeal for re-verification. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to re-examine the data, provide the appellants with a hearing opportunity, and ensure compliance with the decision of the South Regional Bench.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition, granted the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, and remanded the appeal for re-verification to address the discrepancy in counting abatement days and ensure proper application of Rule 96ZO(2) as per legal interpretations.