9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for abatement of duty for the said period. This claim was rejected on the following grounds related to the procedure laid down under sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO :- (i) Electric meter readings at the time of closure and re-start of the unit were not furnished by the party; (ii) The balance of stock at the time of re-start of production was not furnished; (iii) Declaration of continuous closure of the factory during the above period was not submitted. 2. Against the above decision of the Commissioner, the party preferred appeal to this Tribunal and this Bench remanded the matter as per Final Order dated 23-11-2000 wherein it was observed that the Commissioner had not examined t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the UPSEB as a substantive piece of evidence . The learned Counsel particularly relies on the following paragraph of the cited order of the Commissioner :- As UPSEB is the only authority for ensuring distribution of electricity all over UP and now has been converted into UP Power Corporation Ltd., a State Government organization. I differ with the views of earlier orders that the certificate given by UPSEB can only be recommendatory in nature. The certificate given by the UPSEB is therefore a substantive piece of evidence regarding closure of the unit from 27-5-1998 to 10-2-1999 and can be relied upon for extending the benefit of abatement to the party. 5. The cited order was one passed by the same Commissioner in a matter remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration while dealing with a claim for abatement under Rule 96ZO(2), thereby meaning that the certificate issued by the UPSEB ought to have been seriously taken into consideration. Going by the impugned order, one would find that this mandate of the remand order has not been properly followed by the Commissioner. In this context, it is pertinent to note that, as pointed out by the learned Counsel, the learned Commissioner himself had, in an earlier case of another party, taken a view that a certificate issued by the UPSEB was a substantive piece of evidence in support of a claim for abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2). That view needs to be appreciated. However, the Commissioner has not followed the precedent in the instant case involving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
