9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the specified limit and the intimation regarding closure of the factory had been given at least three days in advance. On first occasion, the appellant had intimated on 25/3/09 that they would be closing the factory from 4th April 2009 and on second occasion on 23/6/09 the appellant had intimated they would be closing the factory from 3rd July 2009. There is also no dispute the machine was sealed on 4th April 2009 and 3rd July 2009. Just because the Superintendent s remark regarding sealing does not mention the time of sealing, it cannot be presumed that on 4th April 2009 and 3rd July 2009, the factory had operated. The same view had been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore vs. Sai Pan Products [2012 (12) TMI 380 - CESTAT, NEW ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the abatement of duty, permitted the abatement in the month of April 2009 from 5th April and charged duty for the period from 1/4/09 to 4/4/09 and similarly for the month of July 2009, permitted the abatement from 4/7/09 and charged duty for the period from 1/7/09 to 3/7/09. Thus, the Assistant Commissioner considered the day on which the machine was sealed as the day the machine had worked and charged duty on that basis. This order of the Assistant Commissioner were upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 4/11/10 against which this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the dispute in this case is only for one day in April 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt held that intimation of closure/re-start of production to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner would be sufficient compliance of Clause (b) (d) of Rule 96 ZO (2) of the Erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and that in view of this, the impugned order disallowing the abatement for 4th April 2009 and 3rd July 2009 is not correct. 4. Shri B.B. Sharma, the learned Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it and pleaded that since the machine had been sealed on 4th April 2009 and 3rd July 2009, and the same obviously must have been sealed during day time, it has to be presumed that the unit had functioned during the time prior to the time of sealing and, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
