9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not been paid for the period from April, 1998 to August, 1998 and also proposed penalty. The manufacturer contended in reply that it had sought abatement for considerable part of the period, admitted its liability to duty for the remaining period. The Deputy Commissioner found that the assessee had not complied with the conditions contained in sub-rule 2(e) of Rule 96ZO with regard to various parts and held that the appellant was not available. He, therefore, confirmed the demand for entire duty and imposed penalty. The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the entire information as prescribed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO had been furnished by the assessee and this was no reason for denial of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001 (136) E.L.T. 639, the Tribunal was concerned with the identical question, the liability of an assessee to pay duty in advance for a period for which abatement was available, in respect of a processor of textile fabrics, to whom the provisions of Rule 96ZQ apply. The Tribunal noted that neither sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Act, which provides the authority for claiming abatement, nor sub-rule (7) of Rule 96ZQ which deals with the same issue, required payment of duty in advance in cases where abatement is available. It noted the contents of the Circular No. 485/51/99, dated 15-9-1999 of the Board, that abatement should be granted in cases where no goods have been produced for not less than seven days, without asking the manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that such a processor will not be required to pay duty in advance. It pointed out that as long as the pre-requisite specified in the rule for claim of abatement was specified, the processor is eligible for abatement. "It would be appropriate therefore that where an independent processor is eligible for abatement, it should be granted to him whether he has paid the duty first or did not pay duty in anticipation of obtaining order of abatement. Thus Rule 96ZQ did not contain any specific provision in this regard, there was no specific provision to deny it either." The underlying reason appears to be where the manufacturer has specified the conditions for claim of abatement, there is no point in asking him to pay duty which would in any case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
