9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntinuously for a period of not less than 7 days, they were entitled to abatement of proportionate duty under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO. The appellants claimed such abatement for the periods 2-12-97 to 9-12-97 and 10-3-98 to 18-3-98. The claims have been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the claimants had not submitted the necessary declaration under Clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO. Hence the present appeal. 2. I have examined the records and heard both sides. This appeal is arising in a second round of litigation. In the earlier round, the decision taken by the Commissioner on the above abatement claims was set aside by this Tribunal on the ground of violation of natural justice and the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bstantive benefit of duty cannot be denied on the ground of a minor procedural lapse. He has relied on the Tribunal s decision in Kripal Steel (P) Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (133) E.L.T. 198 (Tribunal) = 2001 (44) RLT 867 (CEGAT)]. 4. Ld. JDR, Shri Hitesh Shah submits that the filing of a declaration under Clause (e) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO was a mandatory requirement for abatement of duty and the same was not fulfilled by the appellants. He relies on the decision of this Tribunal s Larger Bench in CCE v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal - Larger Bench)], wherein it was held that when a particular thing was directed to be performed in a manner prescribed by Rule, it should be performed in that manner only and not ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closed for a continuous period. Such a factual situation is not obtaining in the instant case. Ld. Counsel has submitted that, in determining the question whether the necessary declaration of continuous closure of furnace was available in the case, the letter of restart should be read with the letter of closure. I am unable to agree with this proposition. The said question can be determined only in terms of the letter of intimation of restart of the furnace. The letters of intimation of restart of the furnace relating to the aforesaid two periods of closure did not contain any declaration as required under Clause (e) ibid. The Commissioner's finding to this effect cannot be faulted. It, however, appears that, by letter dated 29-6-98, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
