2000 (7) TMI 736 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether M/s. Ganpati Industries Ltd. is eligible for duty abatement under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:

The appeal filed by M/s. Ganpati Industries Ltd. centered on their eligibility for duty abatement due to the closure of their factory following an electrical failure. The appellant contended that they had informed the excise authorities about the closure and subsequent resumption of production, thus fulfilling the conditions for abatement. However, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur, denied the abatement, emphasizing the requirement of sending a declaration regarding closure/start of production by hand to the Divisional office on the very day of closure/start of production, which the appellant had not done.

Upon review, the Tribunal considered the provisions of Proviso to Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, which allow duty abatement for a factory not producing goods for a continuous period of not less than 7 days, subject to prescribed conditions under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had indeed informed the Asstt. Commissioner about the closure on 12-12-1997 and the resumption of production on 31-12-1997, complying with the conditions specified in the Rule. Both letters were delivered by hand with the stamp of the Asstt. Commissioner's office, indicating compliance.

As the factory had remained closed for more than 7 days, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant was eligible for duty abatement for the period from 12-12-1997 to 31-12-1997. However, since the intimation was not sent on or before 8-12-1997, the abatement for the period from 8th to 11th December 1997 was not granted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed partly, granting relief for the eligible period as per the findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the appellant's compliance with the prescribed conditions for duty abatement, ultimately allowing the appeal in part based on the fulfillment of requirements within the specified timeframe.