9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the abatement claim under Rule 96ZQ(7) of Central Excise Rules was rejected on the ground that the abatement was only four days and the rule provides the stenter should remain closed for more than seven days. 3. In this case, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of processing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the appellant is that their stenter remained closed from 26-2-2000 to 31-3-2000 and this fact is admitted by the Revenue in the show cause notice. The stenter was opened on 31-3-2000 for dismantling and thereafter the same was dismantled. The contention is that their stenter remained closed for more than seven days and the claim was only restricted for four days because law was changed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Rule 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules the manufacturer work under the Compounded Levy Scheme can ask for abatement if their stenter remained closed for more than seven days and this provisions was applicable only up to 29-2-2000. Prior to this, they are closed only for four days, therefore, the abatement claim was rightly denied. 7. In this case, it is admitted by the Revenue that stenter was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Timb Steels Ltd. (supra) held that the provisions of abatement provided under the Central Excise Rules provides that a manufacturer can ask for abatement in case their unit was closed for more than seven days. This does not restricted the claim which was less than seven days. In the present case as the stenter remained closed for more than seven days, however, due to change in law w.e.f. 1-3-2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
