9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Commissioner of Central Excise. Their application has been rejected on the ground that the appellants did not fulfil the requirements under Clause (d) of sub-rule 7 of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Hence the present appeal. 2. I have examined the records and heard both sides. Notice of restart of the stenter was given to the Central Excise Range Superintendent on 21-12-98 and to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner on 22-12-98. The stenter was desealed by the Department on 24-12-98. Ld. Commissioner has not accepted the intimation given to the Superintendent as valid intimation for purposes of Clause (d) of Rule 96ZQ(7) and has held that the notice of restart was not given to the Asstt. Commissioner in advance by 3 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m filed with the Range Superintendent within the prescribed period of six months from the date of payment of duty and, later on with the Asstt. Commissioner after the said period of six months could not be held to be time-barred. Ld. Counsel has relied on the cited case law in urging that the notice of restart of stenter given to the Superintendent in terms of clause (d) of Rule 96ZQ(7) should be held to be valid notice for purposes of the abatement claim and the abatement claim should not be rejected on the ground of delay in notice of restart. 4. Ld. SDR, Ms. Krishna A. Mishra opposes the above prayer and submits that the adjudicating authority has only acted in terms of Clause (d) of Rule 96ZQ(7). That provision of law required notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 days in advance. It is an admitted fact in this case that the appellants had given notice of restart of stenter to the Range Superintendent 3 days in advance as required by the Rule. In my view, a notice of restart given to the Range Superintendent in terms of Clause (d) of Rule 96ZQ(7) ought not to be considered in isolation but should be reckoned in unison with copy thereof given to the Asstt. Commissioner for purposes of deciding the question whether the notice was given 3 days in advance as required under the Rule. It could only be in a case where notice of restart was not at all given to the Asstt. Commissioner that a notice of restart given to the Superintendent would become irrelevant. In other cases like the instant one, a notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
