1999 (11) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iled this application for waiver of the duty demand of Rs. 5,04,301/-. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the Commissioner of Central Excise wrongly disallowed abatement claim for the period 7-6-1998 to 2-7-1998 only on the ground that the applicants had not complied with the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submits that the applican .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n be allowed. He also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of U.P. Alloys (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Kanpur, reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 495 (T) = 1999 (34) RLT 324 (CEGAT). He submits that in this case the Tribunal held that when the conditions for abatement are fulfilled, the abatement should be allowed. 3. Heard learned JDR who reiterated the finding of the lower authority. 4. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X