2024 (2) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of abatement claimed by the appellant under Rule 96 ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - production has taken place during the period of closure or not - whether the appellant is eligible to claim the abatement for 188 days at various periods of intervals during the period 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000, as provided under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? - HELD THAT - The Appellant themselves admitted that they could not fulfill all the conditions as prescribed under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules to avail the abatement. The Appellant explained the reasons for not submitting the Meter reading every time they closed the production and gave the intimation letter to the concerned authorities. The Appellant submits that they could not produce the reading of Electricity Meter every time they closed the production as the Meter room was sealed and fully kept under the control of West Bengal State Electricity Board - the reason given by the Appellant is not convincing. It is found that the Appellant claimed the abatement for 188 days at various periods of intervals during the period 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000. The first period for which abatement sought was for a period of 24 days from 01/10/97 to 24/10/97. This means that after closure of the production for 24 days, the Appellant had commenced their production on 25/10/97. For production of goods from 25/10/97 onwards, they would have either used the electricity provided by the state electricity board or used other source of power from generating sets. If the electricity connection is given again on 25/10/97, they could have easily informed the department about the meter reading at the time of reopening the meters. If the appellant has used other source of power for production, then they should have produced those evidences to the department to substantiate their claim that during the period of closure claimed by them they have not used the other source of power for producing the goods, to claim the abatement. The Appellant has produced neither of the above to convince the department that no production has taken place during the periods of closure as claimed by them. It is not the case of the Appellant that they have continuously closed the production during the period from 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000. They have been closing and restarting the production on various intervals. Every time they closed or re-started the production, the Appellant has not made any effort to submit the Electricity Meter reading. If the Electricity Meter was continuously sealed for the entire period from period 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000, then the Appellant should have intimated the other source of power used for production during re-start of the production at various periods of intervals - the Appellant has not fulfilled all the conditions as prescribed in Rule 96 ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to claim the abatements - the Appellant are not entitled to claim the abatement for the 188 days as claimed by them, as they have not fulfilled all conditions as prescribed under Rule 96ZO(20 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner is upheld - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against the rejection of abatement claimed under Rule 96 ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Abatement Claim under Rule 96 ZO(2)
The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing steel ingots, claimed abatement for various closure periods. The conditions for abatement under Rule 96 ZO(2) were detailed, including informing authorities about closure, submitting electricity meter readings, and declaring closure periods. The Appellant claimed to have fulfilled all conditions except submitting meter readings due to the meter being sealed by the Electricity Board. The Commissioner rejected the abatement, citing lack of meter readings. The Appellant argued they informed authorities about closures and restarts, but the Deputy Registrar contended that meter readings were crucial to determine production during closures. The Tribunal found the Appellant failed to submit meter readings, crucial for claiming abatement, and upheld the Commissioner's decision, as the Appellant did not fulfill all conditions under Rule 96 ZO(2).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the appeal as the Appellant did not fulfill all conditions under Rule 96 ZO(2) to claim abatement for the specified closure periods.