9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 685/- and equal amount of penalty confirmed on them under rule 96ZO(1)(C) of the Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The learned Counsel has contended that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as proper opportunity was not afforded to the appellants for contesting the case and that their reply dated 18-9-2000 to the show cause notice had not even been considered. The Counsel has also pleaded financial hardship of the appellants by contending that the factory has in fact been taken over by the Haryana Financial Corporation due to non-payment of their loan by the appellants on account of loss of about Rs. three crore in the preceding years. He has prayed for total waive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout the closure of their factory on 1-10-1997. The Commissioner had taken into consideration this letter of the appellants while deciding the matter. It is evident from his impugned order that the production capacity of the appellants was determined in accordance with the relevant rules and they were required to pay an amount of Rs. 56,00,000/- in all after deducting the amount of duty already paid by them of Rs. 48,315/- at the time of clearance of their goods. The balance amount of Rs. 55,51,685/- was required to be paid by them before 31-3-1998 but they failed to pay. 6. From the impugned order, it is difficult to infer that prima facie there has been any breach or violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Act/Rules would become redundant. It cannot be disputed that for abatement claim, the party has to prove that there had been closure of factory by adducing cogent documentary evidence. It cannot be presumed simply on the receipt of the information from the party, that his factory remained closed for the period alleged by him. There is nothing on record prima facie to show that the appellants ever sent separately any intimation about the closure of the factory for certain period and its reopening by them. Therefore, for want of any evidence the Commissioner has rightly not considered the claim of abatement of the appellants. 8. The learned Counsel has heavily laid stress on the contention that the appellants are facing financial ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
