Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (2) TMI 366

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 96 ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant were engaged in the manufacture of Alloy and non-Alloy steel Ingots and were working under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, during the relevant period. The Annual Capacity of production under Section 96 ZO was calculated and the appellant was asked to pay Rs.2,00,000/- per month w.e.f 01/10/1997, vide letter dated 23/12/1997. As per sub section 3 of Section 3A read with Section 96ZO(2), the Appellants are eligible to claim abatement if they do not produce the non-alloy goods for any continuous period of not less than 7 days, subject to fulfillment of the  conditions specified in sub-rule 2 of Rule 96ZO. The conditions to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ays (iv) From 28/09/98 to 06/10/98 - 9 days (v) From 14/12/98 to 20/12/98 - 7 days (vi) From 08/06/99 to 14.06.99 - 7 days (vii) From 29/10/99 to 16/11/99 - 19 days (viii) From 20/11/99 to 29/11/99 - 10 days (ix) From 10/01/2000 to 08/02/2000 - 30 days Total 188 days 4. The appellant submits that in all the above periods of closure, they have duly intimated the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, as prescribed under Rule 96 ZO(2). They could not submit the reading of Electricity Meter as prescribed under the said Rule as the Meter room was sealed and fully kept under the control of West Bengal State Electricity Board. In support of this claim, they submitted a le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r is kept. Accordingly, they prayed for allowing the abatement as claimed by them and allow their appeal. 6. The Ld. D.R submits that all the condition prescribed in Rule 96ZO(2) as mentioned in para 2 supra are mandatory conditions. The Appellant has to fulfill all the conditions to avail the abatement, if any, claimed by them. Electricity Meter Reading at the time of closure and re-start of the production is the most crucial requirement as that only indicate whether any production has taken place during the period of closure or not. As the Appellant has not fulfilled all the conditions as prescribed in Rule 96 ZO(2), they are not entitled to claim the abatement. Accordingly, he supported the impugned order rejecting the abatement claimed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng every time they closed the production and gave the intimation letter to the concerned authorities. The Appellant submits that they could not produce the reading of Electricity Meter every time they closed the production as the Meter room was sealed and fully kept under the control of West Bengal State Electricity Board. We find that the reason given by the Appellant is not convincing. We find that the Appellant claimed the abatement for 188 days at various periods of intervals during the period 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000. The first period for which abatement sought was for a period of 24 days from 01/10/97 to 24/10/97. This means that after closure of the production for 24 days, the Appellant had commenced their production on 25/10/97. For .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000, then the Appellant should have intimated the other source of power used for production during re-start of the production at various periods of intervals. Accordingly, we hold that the Appellant has not fulfilled all the conditions as prescribed in Rule 96 ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to claim the abatements. Thus, we hold that the Appellant are not entitled to claim the abatement for the 188 days as claimed by them, as they have not fulfilled all conditions as prescribed under Rule 96ZO(20 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order passed by the Commissioner as we find no infirmity in the order rejecting the abatement claimed by the Appellant. 10. In view of the above .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates