9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order wherein the claim of abatement of Central Excise duty filed by the appellants during the period of closure of their unit was denied by the lower authority on the ground that they had not filed declaration as provided under Rule 96ZO (2) (e) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer of Mild Steel Ingots. They are dischargin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red that its factory had remained closed for a continuous period as provided under Clause (e) of 96ZO (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants are before us. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellants nor any request for adjournment has been received despite notice of hearing has been taken by the learned Counsel of the appellants on 21.04.2011. After consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of closure of the factory. We have examined the case law in the case of Maharshi Commerce Ltd. v. CCE Hyderabad - 2005 (191) ELT 737 (Tri. - Bang.) wherein this Tribunal has held that the Rule 96ZO (2) (e) ibid points out to the period for closure of factory, but the day to be reckoned from '00.00' hrs as the day begins from '00.00' hrs. In that event both the dates of closure and opening a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
