9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eters in the factory and that the quantum of central excise duty determined against it needs to be revised. The application was considered by the concerned authority and through order, dated 13.12.1999, the annual capacity for the assessment year 1999-00 was slashed to 1,10,910/- metric tonnes with effect from 01.10.1999. Stating that the factory did not function at all, between 09.09.1999 and 31.03.2000, the respondent filed an application for abatement, under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Rules. On a consideration of the claim made by the respondent, the Commissioner passed an order, dated 11.07.2000 granting relief in the form of exemption from paying excise duty to the extent of Rs. 8,33,635/-. Aggrieved by that, the Department filed Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise of such amount as may be specified in such order, subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions, namely:- (a) the manufacturer shall inform in writing about the closure to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, either prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure; (b) the manufacturer shall intimate the reading of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a coy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, immediately after the production in his factory is stopped along with the closing balance of stock of the hot re-rolled products of non-ally steel; (c) the manufacturer, when he starts production again, shall inform in w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstance. Normally, we come across cases, under the Income Tax Act, Central Excise Act or Customs Act, wherein the Department does not file appeals against the orders passed in original and it can feel aggrieved only when the order passed by the original authority is reversed in appeal, be it by the Commissioner, or the Tribunal. In the instant case, the Department filed the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner in the fist instance and not in exercise of appellate power. That however is a matter, which needs deep scrutiny in a deserving case. Once Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 96ZP of the Rules provides for filing of an application for abatement, it is just un-understandable as to how any exception can be taken by the Department, to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
