9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order]. The above captioned appeals have been directed against a common Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the abatement claim of the appellants for the period 24-2-2000 to 29-2-2000. 2. The facts of the case are not much in dispute and are common in all these three appeals. All the appellants are engaged in the processing of man made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 (NT) and from 1-4-2000 the original position which was existed prior to 1-3-2000 was restored i.e. closure of one stenter for claiming the abatement of duty by the processors, was sufficient. The appellants in view of the Notification No. 11/2000, laid their claim for abatement of duty only for the period 24-2-2000 to 29-2-2000 as for remaining period, the claim was not admissible under Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s than seven days, their abatement claim had been rightly rejected under the said Rule. 5. I have gone through the record. From the resumption of the facts detailed above, to hold that the appellants' stenter remained closed for less than seven days would be apparently erroneous. The stenter installed in the factory of the appellants factory remained closed for more than seven days as is evident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputed period of five days, is wholly erroneous in law and as such it cannot be sustained. The appellants are entitled to the abatement of duty for the period in dispute for which they have claimed under Rule 96ZQ (7) of the Rules. 6. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order is set aside. The appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
