9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Annual Capacity of Production Scheme as envisaged under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Under the said Rules the appellants are eligible to claim the abatement if the Re-rolling Mill is closed for a continuous period of not less than 7 days. The appellant vide their letter dated 13-4-99 claimed an abatement for 217 days closure for different period during the year 1998-99 and vide letter dated 17-4-2000 claimed an abatement for 197 days for different period during the year 1999-2000. In the de novo proceedings the adjudicating authority was directed to decide the abatement claims of the appellant e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rejection of the abatement claim made by the appellant is correct or otherwise. It is not disputed before me that appellants are functioning under the Annual Production Capacity Scheme. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has preferred the abatement claim for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 5.1 Provisions of Rule 96ZP(2) enables a manufacturer to claim abatement from payment of duty based on Annual Capacity, if the manufacturer does not produce the hot re-rolled products of non-alloy products of non-alloy steel during a continuous period of not less than seven days and he follows the procedure as laid down in Rule 96ZP(2). The provisions of Rule 96ZP(2) are as follows :- Rule 96ZP(2) Where a manufacturer does not produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eading of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise; (e) the manufacturer shall while sending intimation under clause (c), declare that his factory remained closed for a continuous period starting from hours on_______(date) to_____hours on_______(date) 5.2 It is claimed by the appellant that they have followed the provisions of the above Rule strictly for claiming the abatement for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and submitted before me the copies of the letters for both years. I find that the adjudicating authority while examining the abatement claims of the appellants in his order at Para No. 4.3 come to the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has considered the facts of only the year 1998-99 and came to conclusion that the claims are liable to be rejected. To my mind this approach is not correct, in as much that I find from the documents produced before me that the appellants have given the intimations required under Rule 96ZP(2) for the year 1999-2000. They have adhered to the provisions in to to and the adjudicating authority has not considered the same in his order-in-original. To my mind the said order denying the abatement claim for the year 1999-2000 is vitiated as it is not even cursorily referring to the documents of the period 1999-2000. In respect of documents produced by the appellant for the period 1998-99, the adjudicating authority has faulted with only the possib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 Sr. No. Closure period No. of days 1. 3-4-1998 to 17-4-1998 21 2. 24-4-1998 to 1-5-1998 8 3. 9-5-1998 to 15-5-1998 7 4. 1-6-1998 to 14-6-1998 14 5. 27-6-1998 to 3-7-1998 7 6. 18-7-1998 to 31-7-1998 14 7. 5-8-1998 to 17-8-1998 13 8. 14-9-1998 to 7-10-1998 24 9. 17-10-1998 to 8-11-1998 23 10. 23-11-1998 to 18-12-1998 26 11. 1-1-1999 to 15-1-1999 15 12. 22-1-1999 to 31-3-1999 33 13. 27-2-1999 to 31-3-1999 33 TOTAL 217 Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
