9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of 'Khaini' falling under chapter sub-heading 24039910 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The machines installed in the factory of the appellant were shut down during the period 14-9-2011 to 30-9-2011. Thus, the appellant had filed the abatement claim application on 16-11-2011 for Rs. 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, this present appeal by Revenue before this Tribunal. The grievance of the Revenue appellant in this appeal is that since the conditions of the notification dated 27-2-2010 (supra) have not been complied with by the respondent in totality, the abatement provided therein shall not be available. 2. Heard the ld. counsel for both sides and perused the records. 3. The Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest of the department. It is only in the nature of innocuous non adherence of the time-limit of removal of the goods. 12. It is settled law that for unintended in fractions of procedures substantial right of the appellant cannot be frustrated. The appellant already deposited the duty amount in advance for future manufacture and clearance of the goods which as per the facts he did not. Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e views of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent shall be eligible for the abatement benefit provided under the statute since the substantive part of the notification has been duly complied with.
5. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, and as such, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
