9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingots/billets chargeable to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order has disallowed the abatement for the following periods holding that the intimations regarding closure were not received/were not given prior to the closure - (i) From 24-10-1997 to 3-11-1997 (ii) From 31-1-1998 to 10-2-1998 (iii) From 2-3-1998 to 14-3-1998 2.2 The learned Advocate, further, submitted that on 24-10-92, the furnace was closed at 1820 hours on receipt of closure notice from the Punjab State Electricity Board and intimation for closure was sent under their letter dated 24-10-97 on 25-10-97 under Postal Certificate; that the same has been delivered to the authorities on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inational Ltd. v CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 566 (T) = 2002 (50) RLT 46 (CEGAT), D.C. Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 291 (T) = 2002 (48) RLT 418 (CEGAT) and Addi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v CCE, Chandigarh - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 751 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 917 (CEGAT). 2.5 The learned Advocate also mentioned that the Adjudicating Authority has denied the abatement for one day that is, 2nd March, 1998; that since the closure took place on 17:00 hours, intimation to the Range Superintendent was given on the same day whereas in the Divisional Office, it could be given on the next day because by the time their representative reached the Divisional Officer on 2-3-98 it was already closed; that when they have given the intimatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the duty if a factory producing notified goods do not produce the notified goods during any continuous period of not less than 7 days. Further, Rule 96ZO(2) provides that the manufacturer shall 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. In the present matter before us the dispute is about the intimation given about the closure to the proper officer in respect of the first period that is from 24-10-97 to 3-11-97. It is the contention of the Department that the intimation was never received by the Superintendent and intimation about the closure was received by the Assistant Commissioner only on 25-11-97. I find the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the intimation about the closure of the unit was received by the Range Superintendent on 2-3-98. In view of this, there is no reason to not to believe the submissions of the Appellants that by the time the representative of the unit reach the Divisional Office, the same was closed being late evening. Accordingly, there is no reason to deny the abatement in respect of 2-3-98. 6. As far the abatement for the period 31-1-98 to 10-2-98 is concerned, I observe that the intimation for the closure of the factory was sent only on 2-2-98 on the ground that 31st January and 1st February, 1998 happened to be Saturday and Sunday respectively. There is no postal holiday on Saturday, that is 31-1-98 and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
