2013 (12) TMI 576 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Rebate under rule 96ZO (2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 Held that - Following Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Ram Shree Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (7) TMI 702 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - subject to fulfillment of conditions in Rule 96ZO(2) did not amount that all five conditions there were required to be fulfilled procedural requirements could be disposed with if sufficient explanation was given and if there was no allegation of fresh or administrative inconvenienced - although the appellant has not mentioned the hours, the day beginning of the period involved for rebate can be excluded for considering the rebate - although the appellant has not complied with the condition (e) of Rule 96ZO (2) but they are entitled for rebate from the payment of duty Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of rebate under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 due to non-compliance with conditions.
- Interpretation of Rule 96ZO(2) regarding the requirement to mention specific hours in the intimation for claiming abatement.
- Applicability of precedents in similar cases to determine eligibility for rebate.

Analysis:

The appellants appealed against the denial of rebate under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The case involved the interruption of production due to power supply issues, leading to non-compliance with the conditions specified in the rule. The appellants had informed the Central Excise Department about the production interruptions as required, but the rebate was denied by the adjudicating authority citing failure to comply with the conditions of Rule 96ZO(2).

In the appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the denial of rebate was solely based on the non-inclusion of specific hours in the intimation sent to the concerned Superintendent, which was a required condition under Rule 96ZO(2). Reference was made to previous decisions, such as Ram Shri Steels (P) Ltd. case, where substantial compliance with the conditions was considered sufficient for abatement. The counsel requested the impugned order to be set aside and the appeal to be allowed.

On the contrary, the Additional Commissioner (AR) opposed the appellant's contention, emphasizing the strict adherence to the rules. The Additional Commissioner relied on precedents like Mittal Alloys case, Shatabdi Steels Pvt. Ltd. case, and Midland Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd. case to support the argument that rule conditions must be strictly followed.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944, which outlined the conditions for claiming abatement. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not mentioned specific hours as required by condition (e) of the rule. Despite conflicting decisions, the Tribunal referred to the Ram Shree Steels Pvt. Ltd. case, where it was held that procedural requirements could be overlooked if a sufficient explanation was provided and there was no administrative inconvenience. Following this precedent, the Tribunal concluded that although the appellant did not comply with condition (e) of the rule, they were entitled to the rebate from the payment of duty. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of non-compliance with rule conditions for claiming abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) and highlighted the significance of precedents in determining eligibility for rebates in similar cases.