9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Singh, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants process man made fabrics with effect from 16-12-98 and availed the procedure for payment of duty on compounded basis under Rule 96ZQ read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that under their letter dated 28-1-99, they informed the Assistant Commissioner their intention to close one of their stenter from 1-2-99 to 31-3-99 for want of work; that they accordingly, closed the said stenter at 8 A.M. on 1-2-99; that the stenter was sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise at 1700 hrs on 1-2-99; that thereafter they informed the Commissioner of Central Excise under their letter dated 11-2-99 that they would now be discharging the duty in respect of two stenters; that under their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him. He further mentioned that even otherwise they are covered by Clause (7) as they had given intimation of closure 3 days in advance as required by Clause (b) of Rule 96ZQ and accordingly the closure of the stenter was for a period of one month; that if the Superintendent had chosen to seal the stenter at 1700 hrs. because of his own convenience, it does not follow that closure was for less than one month. 3. Countering the arguments Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Proviso to Section 3A(3) provides that where a factory producing notified goods did not produce notified goods durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not required to examine whether provisions of Rule 7(f) are applicable or not to the facts of the present matter. We would, however, like to observe that the Board's Circular No. 485/51/99-CX., dated 15-9-99 also squarely covers the case of the appellants. In this Circular the Board was considering a doubt as to whether in a case where stenter was closed for a period from 16-12-98 to 27-2-99 the duty should be paid first and abatement granted subsequently or abatement can be granted without insisting for payment of duty first. It is clarified in the circular that "where independent processor was eligible for abatement, it should be granted to him whether he has paid the duty first or did not pay the duty in anticipation of the order of aba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
