9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure M.S. Ingots which are notified under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that they had claimed abatement of duty for the period 28-5-1998 to 29-8-1998 inasmuch as the entire factory had remained closed; that the officers of Electricity Board had filed First Information Report against ten units, including the Appellant s unit; that the Electricity Board had disconnected their electricity supply and sealed the electric meter; that the intimation for closure of factory had been given by them on 28-5-98; that the meter reading was not available as the meter room was sealed by the Officers of Electricity Board; that they had not claimed the abatement of duty with effect from 27-5-1998 as they had filed the intimation on 28-5-1998; that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad taken place for which they had filed FIR in Police Station on 23-6-98. The learned Advocate also mentioned that the Adjudicating Authority had given his findings that the intimation regarding opening balance of finished stock as on 30-8-98 was received in the Commissionerate on 29-10-99; that this finding is not correct on fact as their said letter was received by the Office of Deputy Commissioner on 29-10-1998 which is evident from the receipt stamp on the letter on which date was wrongly typed as 28-10-99 . He, thus, submitted that the Appellants have followed proper procedure; that Rules of procedure are made to further justice and not to hamper it; that in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner [1991 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants initially had two furnaces installed in their factory; that on 29-6-98 they applied to the Department for permission for reduction of capacity of production of one furnace from 4 MT to 3 MT since it was not giving satisfactory production; that the permission of the Commissioner to change the installed capacity was intimated to them under letter dated 5-8-98; that regarding the change in the capacity was duly informed by them on 28-8-98 and they filed revised declaration for fixing the revised capacity and duty liability; that further they had intimated to the Department, in their letter dated 2-9-98 that they were surrendering their second furnace of 4 MT and the same was dismantled by them on 2-9-98; that by mistake they filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cific inasmuch as the abatement will be allowed .... Subject to the fulfilment of following condition; that as per decision in Indal v. Thane Municipal Corporation [1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (S.C.)], non observance of even a procedural condition cannot be condoned if likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences; that letter of closure dated 27-5-98 was received by the Asstt. Commissioner on 28-5-98, whereas they were required to intimate about closure either on 27-5-98 or prior to that date; that they had also not furnished the electricity meter reading and as such they did not comply with the conditions (a) and (b) of Rule 96ZO(2); that moreover the intimation of restarting of production was received in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose cases electronic meters were installed. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Proviso to Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act provides that where a factory did not produce the goods during any continuous period of not less than 7 days, duty calculated on a proportionate basis shall be abated in respect of such period if the manufacture of such goods fulfils conditions as may be prescribed. The conditions have been specified in Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules. According to these conditions, the manufacturer has to inform in writing about the closure to the Assistant Commissioner with a copy to the Superintendent either prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure along with reading of electricit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment. The appellants have submitted that a new electric meter was instilled in their factory on 29-8-98 which is apparent from the certificate given by UP Electricity Board as their earlier meter was stolen for which a FIR had been filed by them. The Revenue had not brought any evidence to controvert these factual submissions. The adjudication authority has discarded the Certificate of Electricity Department by merely observing that the said department is not the prescribed authority for such purpose. We do not agree with these observations. The electric meter can be installed only by the Electricity Board and any Certificate given by that authority cannot be just brushed aside. It is also seen from the photocopy of the appellant s letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
