9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents to pay interest as well as mandatory penalty equal to the duty amount for the delayed deposit of the duty in terms of Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Rules. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents applied for abatement of duty for the period 18-2-2000 to 28-2-2000 on the ground that their stenter remained closed for this period. They, however, did not make deposit of the duty for the entire month of Feb. 2000 in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules, at the time of filing of abatement claim. They however, later during the pendency of the rebate claim made deposit of the entire duty in instalment as detailed in the order itself. The Commissioner has allowed abatement claim but directed the respondents to pay manda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 6. So far as the first ground of the Revenue that entire factory should have remained close for claiming abatement of duty for the period in question by the respondents, the same is wholly mis-conceived. This ground was not even alleged in the show cause notice. The Revenue cannot be permitted to trave beyond the scope of show cause notice and allowed to put up altogether a new ground for resisting the abatement claim of the respondents. Even otherwise, from the bare perusal of Rule 96ZQ, no such requirement can be spelled out. Rather the perusal of this rule shows that the abatement can be claimed in respect of a single stenter by an independent processor if the stenter had re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey had deposited the entire duty during the pendency of the abatement claim. Even otherwise, the Commissioner was required to afford an opportunity to the respondents for depositing the duty before disposing of their abatement claim, as per the law laid down in Mahalakshmi Enterprises (supra). 9. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that there had been any violation of the provisions of Rule 96ZQ of the Rules, by the respondents while claiming the abatement of duty for the period in question. The Commissioner, by taking into consideration the deposit of duty for the entire month of Feb. 2000, had rightly allowed the abatement claim of the respondents for the disputed period. The Commissioner has even burdened them with penalty equal to dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
