9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claimed by them on the ground that the conditions stipulated under Rule 96ZO(2) were not complied with regarding intimation of closure of the factory to the Assistant Commissioner and Range Superintendent; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appeal under impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 110 (KDT)/CE/JPR-I(61)/2001, dated 14-3-2001; that the Commissioner, Central Excise has consequently confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty under the second impugned Order-in-Original No. 48/1999, dated 20-12-1999. We heard the learned Advocate and Shri Jagdish Singh, learned DR, about the admissibility of abatement claims. Their respective submissions and our findings are detailed below. 3.1 The learned Advocate submitted that the factory of the Appellant was closed on 6-5-1998 at 16.40 hrs.; that intimation of closure was sent by them to the Range Superintendent on 7-5-1998 and to the Assistant Commissioner on 9-5-1998 by Registered Post; that on 6-5-1998 first they attempted to set the furnace in order and by the time it was realized that furnace could not be restarted, it was late in the evening and when a man went to the Range Office, no body was available there; that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f closure or on the date of closure . In the present matter admittedly the intimation even to the Range Superintendent was sent on 7-5-1998 and not on 6-5-1998. The reason advanced by the Appellant for not sending the intimation to the Superintendent on 6-5-98 is not satisfactory one. As the intimation has been sent to the Range Superintendent on 7-5-1998 and factory had started production on 13-5-1998, it had remained closed only for six days and as such they are not eligible for abatement of duty. 4.1 The learned Advocate mentioned that their factory was closed on 16-5-1998 at 07.05 hrs. and they could send intimation to the Range Office only on 19-5-1998 as 16th to 18th May, 1994 were holidays; that the intimation for closure, however, had been sent to the Assistant Commissioner by Registered Post the same day i.e. 16-5-1998; that as the production was restarted on 23-5-1998 the factory had remained closed for not less than 7 days the abatement is admissible to them. He relied upon the decision in D.C. Steel (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 291 (T) = 2002 (48) RLT 418 wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that when the closure is not preplanned or pre-schedul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on 18-8-1998 and as such the factory had remained closed for 11 days and the abatement of duty should be given to them. 5.2 The learned DR submitted that the intimation to the Asstt. Commissioner was received only on 11-8-1998 and as such the factory remained closed for less than 7 days making the Appellants ineligible for abatement of duty. He also mentioned that the office of the Asstt. Commissioner had been shifted from Jaipur to Bhiwadi and the intimation could have been given to the Division office also on 7th as the factory of the Appellant is located at Bhiwadi. 5.3 We have considered the submissions of both the sides. No doubt the intimation had been given by the Appellants to the Range Office on 7-8-1998 itself the intimation was sent by them to the Division office, only on 8-8-1998 by registered post. There is force in the submissions of the learned DR that the intimation should have been given on 7th August itself to the Asstt. Commissioner also as his office by then was located at Bhiwadi itself. However, the Revenue is not justified in taking the date of closure as 11th August as the intimation of closure had been sent to the Asstt. Commissioner on 8-8-1998 by po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Labour Commissioner, Alwar certifying that due to labour dispute the production in the Appellants factory remained closed from 5-10-1998 to 10-11-1998; that in addition electric connection in their factory was disconnected on 24-10-1998 due to non-payment of dues and the same was restored only on 29-1-1999; that a certificate to this effect issued by Executive Engineer, Rajasthan Electricity Board, Bhiwadi was also submitted; that moreover initially the electricity department charged them for the period of strike on the basis of minimum charges; that however, when the matter was disputed they were given an abatement for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of closure of production and non-use of electricity during the period 5-10-1998 to 23-10-1998. The learned Advocate, therefore, contended that it is thus apparent that the production in the Appellants factory remained closed continuously for 124 days for which abatement is admissible to them. 7.2 The learned DR countered by submitting that it is statutory requirement under Rule 96ZO(2)(a) to give intimation regarding closure of the factory to the Asstt. Commissioner; that the Asstt. Commissioner did not receive the intimation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
