9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction furnace unit in the premises situated at Kanganwal Road, Jugiana, Ludhiana. They manufacture non-alloy steel ingots/billets which are chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act read with Notification No. 30/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-8-97, as per annual production capacity of the unit. They filed claim for abatement of duty for the period 15-12-97 to 27-3-98 by alleging that one of their induction furnace did not produce goods and remain closed during that period. Their claim was initially decided by the adjudicating authority partly in their favour and partly against them. That order was thereafter challenged by them before the Tribunal and the same was set aside vide order dated 8-3-99. The matter was sent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Commissioner. 6. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 7. The perusal of the record shows that when the abatement claim of the appellants was decided earlier by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 27-11-98 allowing part of the abatement claim up to 30 days to them they themselves challenged the validity of the said order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in that appeal set aside the order of the Commissioner in toto after waiving pre-deposit, without leaving any part of the order unaltered. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision. Therefore, the original order of the Commissioner stood merged with that the Tribunal s order dated 8-3-99 vide which the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion furnace of 2 MT. remained closed during the disputed period, while other remained in operation. In view of the face of these admitted facts, it could not be said that the entire factory remain closed for the disputed period. The bare perusal of the proviso appended to sub-section (3) of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff (sic), reproduced above, makes it abundantly clear that abatement shall be allowed only where the factory did not produce the notified goods during any continuous period of not less than seven days. The argument of the learned Counsel that each furnace/unit has to be taken as a factory, for the purpose of sub-section (3) of erstwhile Section 3A of the Act for allowing the abatement, as ACP is determined always on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnacewise. The reliance by the Counsel of affixing of annual capacity of production independently for each furnace does not advance the appellants case in view of the fact that total annual production capacity has been taken as only one figure and further, the language of the proviso is very clear that abatement is permissible only if the factory does not produce notified goods. 11. No help can also be sought by the Counsel from the order of the A.C. dated 12-10-99 who allegedly allowed abatement of duty for the disputed period to the appellants. This order became non-existent after service of fresh show cause notice on the appellants after remand of the case by the Tribunal. No reference was even made by the appellants themselves to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
