9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pped and on the date it was restarted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills and was paying duty on the basis of annual capacity of production determined by the Commissioner under the Annual Capacity of Production Determination Rules. Under Section 3A(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 an assessee can claim for abatement in duty liability subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed in Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which reads as follows :- (a) The manufacturer shall inform in writing about the closure to the (Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise) with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, either prior to the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed abatement for the period 23-1-1999 to 31-3-1999 which was duly sanctioned by the Commissioner. As per the appellants say they have followed all the requirement prescribed under Rule 96ZP(2) in respect of the period 23-1-1999 to 31-3-1999. They have sent an intimation to the department vide letter dated 29-1-1999 intimating closure of factory w.e.f. 23-1-1999. On 21-7-1999 they also disclosed the stock as on 31-3-1999 being the date of closure of the factory and also expressed their intention to start manufacture after the end of financial year 1998-99. 4. Further on 31-3-1999 they intimated to the department that the repairs were still in progress and that an intimation will be given as and when the production is commenced. Afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntinuous period from 1-4-1999 to 1-5-1999. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the factory remained under continuous closure for the period 23-1-1999 to 1-5-1999 and intimation to this effect was given to the department vide their letter dated 29-1-1999, 27-2-1999, 30-3-1999 and their letter dated 1-5-1999. They have also indicated the stock position on 27-2-1999 as it existed 23-1-1999. The Commissioner has granted abatement for the period 23-1-1999 to 31-3-1999, even though there was a delay in declaring the physical stock and the date of closure of the factory. Since the closure was continuous without any break as is evident from their letters cited above, the physical stock as declared on 23-1-1999 remained the same on the date of resta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 643 (Tri.-Del.) in support of its claim that non-disclosure of stock position or late disclosure of stock position cannot be fatal to their claim of abatement. We, however, find that in all these cases stock position was intimated, though there was some delay in intimating the same. Intimations were also send in time and therefore these cases do not support the appellants contention. We, therefore, hold that intimating the physical stock position on the date of closure is a must and in absence of same the abatement claim is liable to be rejected. Having said so we however find that in respect of the abatement claim for the period 1-4-1999 to 1-5-1999 there has been continuous closure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
