2001 (9) TMI 381 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Grant of remission of duty in view of closure of manufacturing unit for three periods.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case revolves around the grant of remission of duty for three specific periods due to the closure of a manufacturing unit. The Commissioner rejected the claims for various reasons, including failure to meet requirements for abatement, such as not intimating the Assistant Commissioner about the closure and restart of the unit, not providing necessary information like electricity meter readings and stock quantities, and not filing continuous closure declarations. The rejection was based on the appellant's alleged delay in filing intimations, which the appellant explained was due to unforeseen circumstances like sudden electricity disconnection and intervening holidays. However, the Commissioner remained unconvinced by these explanations.

For the first period, the Commissioner denied credit due to the appellant's failure to provide timely intimation of closure and restart, despite the appellant's explanation of the circumstances leading to the delay. The rejection for the second period was based on the claim being for a closure period slightly short of seven days, which the Commissioner deemed ineligible for abatement under Section 3A. Additionally, discrepancies in the date of unit restart further complicated the matter. The abatement for the third period was rejected due to non-compliance with Rule 96ZO(2)(e) regarding the continuous closure declaration.

The appellant argued that the delays in filing intimations were beyond their control and cited precedents where abatement claims were upheld despite similar issues. They emphasized that the factory was not operational during the claimed periods, as confirmed by Central Excise authorities' visits and endorsements. The appellant also contested the rejection based on a mere five-minute difference in closure duration, deeming it unreasonable.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, noting the lack of evidence suggesting the factory was operational during the claimed periods and accepting the explanations provided for the delays in filing intimations. The Tribunal also referenced a previous decision that supported the appellant's arguments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellants were granted consequential relief as deemed appropriate.