9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k account i.e. RG-1 register. It is also declared in monthly returns and both these records are statutory records. Therefore though the appellant did not declare the closing stock specifically, the same stands complied with as the same was declared in the RG-1 and monthly returns. Appellant's production was resumed on 15-1-2000, however the intimation was filed on 17-1-2000, it is observed that 15th and 16th being Saturday and Sunday were holidays. Therefore, filing of intimation on 17-1-2000 cannot be treated as belated in terms of provision of General Clauses Act, accordingly to which any act to be done on a particular date and if any holiday falls on that date, the next working day shall be treated as date within the period prescribed. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s suspended from 02-09-1999 to 14-01-2000. They filed an abatement claim for ₹ 19,77,770/- vide their letter dated 17-01-2000. In support of claim, they furnished a copy of letter dated 02-09-1999. Intimation of the closure of production and electric meter reading on 02-09-1999, a copy of letter dated 16-01-2000 was also submitted on 17-01-2000 intimating the resumption of production on 15-01-2000. The abatement claim of the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner vide impugned order on the ground that the appellant failed to declare closing balance of stock. The production was resumed on 15-01-2000, whereas the intimation was given on 17-01-2000. Thus they failed to intimate the fact of resumption of production either prior or on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied the procedure substantially. However, even if, there is non-compliance of the procedure but it is established that the unit was closed for the continuous period, the abatement was allowed in various judgments. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Commr. of C.Ex., Surat-I vs. Sabnam Processors Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (224) ELT 275 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (ii) Share Medical Care vs. Union of India - 2007 (209) ELT 321 (S.C.) (iii) Commr. of Customs, Chennai vs. Texworth International - 2007 (220) ELT 487 (Tri.- Chennai) (iv) Commr. of Customs, Chennai vs. Kankai Imports - 2007 (7) STR 190 (Tri.- Chennai) (v) Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Mumbai-1997 (92) ELT 703 (Tribunal) 4. On the othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that date, the next working day shall be treated as date within the period prescribed. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the appellant in filing the intimation on 17-01-2000. Regarding non-declaration of continuous closing period, it is a minor lapse, as from the intimation date of the closure and date of resumption of production, the period of closure can be easily ascertained. Therefore, it cannot be said, the period of closure is not in the knowledge of the department. In view of the above, we find that substantial compliance of the procedure for claiming the abatement was made by the appellant. Moreover from all the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel, it is clear that only due to minor procedure lapse, the abatement claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
