9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te in the present case relates to grant of remission of duty in respect of three periods in view of the closure of manufacturing unit. The periods involved are as under :- 6-11-97 to 22-11-97 2-12-97 to 9-12-97 and 9-1-98 to 27-1-98. 2. These claims have been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that requirements for allowing abatement have not been met. The credit for the period 6-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late in the evening, the intimation could be given only on 7-11-1997 and though the unit restarted on 22-11-1997 (upon settling of dispute with the electricity Board) the intimation could be given only on 24-11-1997 as 22nd and 23rd happened to be holidays (Saturday and Sunday). The appellant s explanation that intimation regarding restart of unit had been filed before the jurisdictional Range Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed under that sub-rule. 3. The submission in the present appeal with regard to delay in filing the intimation is that the delay was beyond the control of the appellant as it was on account of intervening holidays or late in the evening disconnection of electricity supply by the supplier. It has also been submitted that this Tribunal has held in the case of Kirpal Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s difference is no ground for holding the closure as less than for seven days. 4. There is no allegation made, or finding recorded that the appellant s factory was working and producing steel ingots during the periods for which abatements have been claimed. In fact, positive evidence available through the visits and endorsements of the Central Excise Officers confirmed the declarations of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
