9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith Rule 96 ZO of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1992. The appellant commenced its production with effect from 08.05.1998. Based on the Compounded Levy Scheme, the Department determined the annual capacity of the appellant unit under Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 and duty liability of Rs. 5,83,334/- per month was fixed, which was required to be paid in two equal instalments by the appellant. Since there was no regular electricity supply to the appellant's unit by grid, the manufacturing activity was commenced with the aid of DG set. Due to technical fault in the DG set, there was no regular production activity. Therefore, appellant filed the abatement claim of Rs. 92,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H)], and the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Aswad Steels and Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [(2009 (243) ELT 370 (Tri.-Del.)], CCE, Kanpur Vs. Mahavir Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2004 (175) ELT 272 (Tri.-Del)] and CCE, Kanpur Vs. Shatabdi Steels Pvt. Ltd.[2004 (176) ELT 774 (Tri.-Del.)]. 3. On the other, hand Shri RK Mishra, ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue submits that since the conditions of Rule 96ZO (2) of the Rules read with sub-section 3A of Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1994 have not been fulfilled by the appellant in entirety, the abatement provided in the said Rules was not available to them. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. I find that the ld. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under Rule 96ZO(2) that intimation regarding reading of the electricity meter to Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise with a copy to Range Superintendent , Central Excise, has not been fulfilled by the appellants. However, the appellants were not using power supply from electricity board and therefore, they could not have given electricity meter reading. Further, the intimation has not been challenged. We find that all other requirements have been fulfilled and the Department also is not contesting that factory had remained closed but the claim for abatement has been rejected only on the ground that reading of electricity meter has not been given to the Department. Under these circumstances, we consider that rejection was only on techn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
