2009 (3) TMI 726

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. [Order]. -  The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Non-Alloy Steel Ingots classifiable under sub-heading No. 7206.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The di pute relates to claim of abatement during the period 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The appellants paid duty under Compounded Levy Scheme under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elegram for the holidays. She further submits that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Vimal Alloys Ltd. reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 80 (P & H) held this issue in favour of the assessee. 3. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that Rule is providing that "the manufacturer shall inform in writing". So, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... olidays, where prior information could not be given, the party should inform the R.O., Divisional AC and the Commissioner by telegram on next date itself, giving all the details as required under the Rules. The Tribunal in the case of Vimal Alloys Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 318 (Tribunal-Delhi) held that intimation of closure on public holidays was received .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X