9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that: - the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal in favor of the respondent, holding that the respondent herein has substantially complied with the requirement of the aforementioned notification and that non-filing of intimation with the Department within time is a procedural lapse, for which the substantive right conferred in the statute cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16-11-2011 for ₹ 24,36,667/- under the Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27-2-2010. The abatement claim was rejected by the Central Excise Department on the ground that the production activity was stopped on 13-9-2011 and clearances were made on 17-9-2011, which is after 4 days of the commencement of the closure of the factory. The further ground assigned for denial of abatement is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the following findings in the impugned order for arriving at the conclusion that the respondent herein shall be eligible for the abatement claim. The relevant paragraph of the impugned order are extracted hereinbelow : 11. As regards non removal of gods within a period of two days from the manufacturing premises; no doubt the appellant has removed the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not. Except the fact of delay of two days in removing the goods, the appellant has fulfilled the requirement of the notification to entitle him abatement of the duty. Therefore, the denial of the abatement of the lower authority is bad in law and required to be set aside accordingly the order-in-original is set aside and appeal is allowed. 4. I find from the impugned order that the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
