9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (T)]. In this appeal, the simple issue before us arises out of para 13 of Order-in-Original No. 6/99 dated 29-1-99 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise after consideration of the matter de novo in terms of this Tribunal s final order No. 1404/98 dated 23-7-1998. 2. Heard Shri B.V. Kumar, ld. Advocate for appellants, who submits that the order impugned has denied abatement of duty un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h duty was to be paid was suspended by Hon ble High Court of Delhi, therefore demand was not maintainable. He cites Handum Iron and Steel Enterprises Ltd. v. CCE as in 1999 (34) RLT 916 (CEGAT) Maharishi Commerce Ltd. as in 1999 (34) RLT 918 (CEGAT). 3. Heard ld. DR Shri S. Kannan, who submits that even from the definition of factory in Section 2(e), it does not follow that each furnace would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied goods are produced in a factory for 7 continuous days, then duty abatement on these goods is available. In the order-in-original impugned ld. Commissioner has also interpreted the said proviso in this manner and held that since at least one furnace was always operational, such a period of 7 days of total non-production of the notified goods was not demonstrated by appellants and hence the abat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it was held that a factory includes the whole premises. Ld. Advocate's submissions are to the contrary, that within the whole premises each furnace is a different factory. Hence this case law stands distinguished. The concept of a mobile factory examined by Hon'ble Tribunal in ICI India Ltd. (supra) is also distinguished on facts here as these furnaces are not mobile. 6. The second submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
