9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, as per the plain reading of this Rule, the only requirement is that the period of 15 days or more should be a continuous period. The contention of the Revenue is contrary to the plain language of Rule 10 - No infirmity in the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was made absolutely in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 and the same does not require any interference. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is sustainable and the appeals filed by the Revenue are liable to be rejected - Decided against Revenue. - E/597-599/2010-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/200-202/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 7-1-2015 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J) Shri N. Prabhu Desai, Superintendent (AR), for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Tariff Act and is entitled for the abatement if the unit is closed for a continuous period of 15 days or more. The original authority rejected the claim on the ground that the closure of the factory for 15 days or more is not in a particular calendar month and it is spilling over in two months. The respondent filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the refund vide three orders-in-appeal by allowing the appeals of the appellant except the refund for a continuous period of less than 15 days. Aggrieved with the impugned orders, the Revenue is before me. 3. Shri N. Prabhu Desai, learned Superintendent (AR), appearing for the appellant (Revenue), submits that the abatement can only be granted when the unit is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduce the notified goods during any continuous period of fifteen days or more, the duty calculated on a proportionate basis shall be abated in respect of such period provided the manufacturer of such goods files an intimation to this effect with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, at least seven days prior to the commencement of said period, who on receipt of such intimation shall direct for sealing of all the packing machines available in the factory for the said period under the physical supervision of Superintendent of Central Excise, in the manner that these cannot be operated during the said period : Provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appeal is required to be filed within 60 days of the receipt of Order. As per proviso to the Section 35(1), the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within 60 days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days. In the present case, the appeal was required to be filed within 60 days i.e. on or before 18-9-2009, but same is filed on 9-10-2009. Thus there was delay of 21 days. The appellant filed application for condonation of delay along with appeal stating that the delay is attributed to the sudden illness of relative in their hometown and no responsible person was available during the relevant time. This is appeal, against reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, with a copy, to the Superintendent, of Central Excise, [at least three working days] prior to the commencement of said period, who on receipt of such intimation shall direct for sealing of all the packing machines available in the factory for the said period under the physical supervision of Superintendent of Central Excise, in the manner that these cannot be operated during the said period : Provided that during such period, no manufacturing activity, whatsoever, in respect of notified goods shall be undertaken and no removal of goods shall be effected by the manufacturer : Provided further that when the manufacturer intends to restart h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is seen that the unit was closed from 24-1-2009 to 2-3-2009 and from 14-3-2009 to 16-4-2009 and there has been no dispute about this closure period. The refund was rejected on the ground that, during the month of March 2009, the intimation was given on 4-3-2009 for closure of unit by sealing the packing machine on 14-3-2009 and that the number of days of closure after giving the intimation on 4-3-2009 are only 18 days from 14-3-2009 to 31-3-2009. The adjudicating authority has considered only one intimation of closure filed in March 2009 and ignored earlier intimation filed for closure. As against the earlier intimation given on 16-1-2009, the closure period started from 24-1-2009 and ended on 2-3-2009 which is a continuous period for more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
