9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 944, had submitted two claims for abatement of duty on the ground that their furnace had remained closed for continuous periods 2-12-97 to 9-12-97 and 3-2-98 to 10-2-98. Both the claims have been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the conditions stipulated under clauses (b), (d) (e) of Rule 96ZO(2) had not been fulfilled by the claimant. The Commissioner held that the said conditions were mandatory and hence required to be satisfied by the assessee for the purpose of claiming abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2). The Commissioner took this view by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mihir Textiles Ltd. v. CC, Bombay [1997 (92) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.)] and the decisions of the Tribunal in CCE v. Avis Electronics (P) Ltd. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act of the statutory record (RG-1) itself was furnished to the Commissioner, which clearly showed the closing stock of Ingots on the dates of closure and restart of furnace. 4. Ld. Advocate Sh. K.K. Anand has reiterated the above contentions and has relied on the following decisions :- (i) Kirpal Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2001 (133) E.L.T. 198 (T) = 2001 (44) RLT 867(CEGAT)] (ii) Addi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2001 (134) E.L.T. 751] In the former case, it was held that abatement claim under Rule 96ZO(2) was not to be rejected on the ground of non-intimation of electric meter reading or on the ground that no declaration was filed under clause (e) of the sub-rule. In the latter case, certain delay i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed as a ground for rejection of the abatement claims. As regards non-mention of stock position, I observe that, in the letter dated 2-12-97 (vide page 11 of appeal file) submitted by the appellants, they had mentioned the stock position of product but this letter was apparently not considered by the Commissioner. However, in the letter dated 8-12-97 intimating restart of production, the party did not mention the stock position. The stock positions were, later on, furnished by the party in their abatement claim for the period 2-12-97 to 9-12-97. Apparently, this was not accepted by the Commissioner as due compliance with clauses (b) (d) of sub-rule (2). In respect of the period 3-2-98 to 10-2-98, the appellants did mention the stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
