9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.11.2011. In such a scenario, the raising of objection by the Revenue cannot be appreciated. It is also found that in terms of Rule 10 the requirement for abatement claim is closure of the factory itself. The appellant started working on their second installed machine w.e.f. 27.11.2011 and with such working factory, cannot be held to be closed. As such the complete closure of the factory was only for the period 10.11.2011 upto 26.11.2011. All the other conditions of rule 10 having been satisfied by the appellant for the view of the abatement claim of the assessee is required to be given for the period 10.11.2011 to 26.11.2011. The same would be requantified by the adjudicating authority and allowed to the assessee. - Appeal disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g sealed during the period 10.11.2011 to 30.11.2011, in terms of Rule 10 of the said rules. The Revenue proposed to reject the abatement claim on the grounds that intimation for closure of the machine was given just two days prior to the actual closure whereas the Rules require intimation of 3 days. Further, the abatement claim was sought to be rejected by observing that Rule 10 allows abatement only when the entire factory is closed and not when only one machine is sealed. In as much as the appellant started functioning of their second machine w.e.f. 27.11.2011 it cannot be said that the factory was closed. Further, the Revenue sought to reject the abatement in as much as the appellant claimed the same in terms of section 11B of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner. If the Revenue is sensitive about the three days period, as provided under the said rule they could have sealed the machine after a period of 3 days from 08.11.2011. The fact that the machine was sealed within a period of two days of intimation itself shows that the Revenue is not strict about the fact of three days notice. Otherwise also I find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Tribunal s earlier decision. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. Rajat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE 2015-TIOL-423-CESTAT-DE L laying down that the benefit of abatement, if otherwise available, cannot be denied on the technical grounds of the intimation having been given late. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
