9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Compounded Levy Scheme w.e.f. 1-9-1997 and, accordingly, the provisions of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act became applicable to them w.e.f. the said date. Under Rule 96ZO (2) of the Central Excise Rules, the appellants were entitled to apply for abatement of duty for any continuous period of closure of their furnace, not less than seven days on fulfilment of the conditions laid down under the said sub-rule. The said conditions, contained in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-rule (2) ibid., are as follows :- "(a) the manufacturer shall inform in writing about the closure to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, either prior to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself. Later the appellant under clause (c) gave intimation of restarting of production to the Assistant Commissioner as per letter dated 9-9-1997. This letter was also sent to the Assistant Commissioner through courier on 9-9-1997 and a copy thereof was also submitted the Range Central Excise Inspector who acknowledged receipt of the same on 9-9-1997 itself. The said letter dated 9-9-1997 was also accompanied by the declaration as required under clause (e) of sub-rule (2) (supra). As per the above letters dated 1-9-1997 and 9-9-1997 sent by the appellants to the Assistant Commissioner, the appellants factory was closed due to fault of machinery at about 1.00 AM on 1-9-1997 and resumed production at 1.00 AM on 10-9-1997. The appellants, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or under clause (c) of sub-rule (2) ibid., ought to have been given directly to the Assistant Commissioner on the date of closure of the furnace or on the date of restarting of the furnace, as the case may be, or on a date prior to such date. Since the intimation of the appellants under clauses (a) and (c) was received by the Assistant Commissioner only on 3-9-1997 and 11-9-1997 respectively, the Commissioner maintained, the said conditions remained unfulfilled and therefore the party was not eligible for the abatement of duty claimed under Rule 96ZO (2) read with Section 3A of the Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner rejected the abatement claim of the appellants as per his order dated 12-5-1999 which is under challenge in the present appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y for a period starting from 3-9-1997 and ending 10-9-1997. This period is a continuous period of 8 days. The appellants have also furnished the relevant extracts of their RG-I register, which show that there was no production activity during this period. It also appears that the Assistant Commissioner had visited the appellants, factory during this period but he did not find anything indicative of any production activity in the appellants' factory from 1-9-1997 to the date of his visit. 7. Therefore, I hold that the appellants are entitled to abatement of duty for the continuous period of non-production from 3-9-1997 to 10-9-1997 inasmuch as they have fulfilled all the conditions for such abatement under Rule 96ZO (2). The lower authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
