9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o furnish copies of letters dated 1.10.1998 and 1.10.1999 to the appellant. The only strong inference that can be drawn from this letter is that the intimations regarding the closure of the factory was received by the department. Therefore, the rejection of abatement on the ground that appellant did not give intimations cannot sustain. The rejection of abatement is without basis - Appeal allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner and communicated to them. The appellant opted to pay duty on monthly basis and thereafter opted to pay duty under consignment basis. As per sub-section (3) of Section 3A, an assessee is eligible for abatement for the period when the unit is shut down and non-functional. According to appellant vide letter dated 1.10.1998 and 1.10.1999 intimated the department with regard to the period of closur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that though the appellant has given intimations vide letters dated 1.10.1998 and 1.10.1999 regarding the shutdown of the rolling mill, the department has denied receiving such letters and therefore rejected the abatement claims. It is submitted by him that as per letter dated 6.5.2003, the department themselves have permitted copies of the said letters on request made by the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the appellant has not complied with clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore is not entitled for abatement. As per this rule, the appellant has to give intimation to the department informing the department the period during which the unit is shut down and the reasons for closing down. In para 4 and 4.1, the Commissioner has noted that no such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts of the case into consideration as well as the provision of law and the decision of the Hon ble High Court followed by us in the above stated final order, we are of the considered view that the rejection of abatement is without basis. The impugned order rejecting the abatement cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
