9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants were engaged in manufacture of non-alloy steel and hot re-rolled products etc. During the period from 1.9.1997 to 31.3.2000, the said products were brought under compounded levy scheme of payment of excise duty as contained in proviso to section 3A(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Vide order dated 7.4.2010, the matter was remanded for denovo consideration. Thereupon, the adjudicating authority vide order impugned herein confirmed the rejection of abatement claim. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri S. Venkatachalam submitted that the claim for abatement has been rejected for the reason that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chamundi Steel Castings (India) Ltd. has held that the assessee would be eligible for abatement on pro-rata basis during the period of closure of the mill. 3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .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 Hon'ble High Court in the case of Chamundi Steel Castings (India) Ltd. (supra), had observed that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
