9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order dated 11-3-99 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur. 2. Arguing for the appellant Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate submitted that the issue relates to abatement of duty for closure of the unit with reference to determination of Annual Production Capacity. He said that in the instant case the unit was closed for more than 7 days. Further, he said that unit was closed on 15-1-1998 to 2-3-1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation is required to be sent either one day prior or on the date of closure. Therefore, in the first case the closure shall be deemed to be from 28-5-98 and abatement will be admissible only for the period from 28-5-1998 to 13-6-1998. In respect of the second claim of abatement for the period 18-6-98 to 4-8-98, we find that the claim will be admissible as it satisfied the requirements of the rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closed for seven continuous days or not. It has been held in the case of C.S.T. v. Prabhudayal [1998 (71) STC 1 (SC) = 1998 Supp 1 SCR 583] that the conditions for grant of a concession must be deemed to be mandatory. The same ruling was again confirmed in C.S.T. v. Shiv Deri Niwar Industries [1997 (104) STC 132 (SC)]". 4. In reply Shri R. Santhanam drew my attention to para 2 of the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
