2004 (1) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - The Revenue is in appeal. The challenge is made to the findings in the impugned order that an assessee working under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules is entitled to abatement of duty in case the units remain closed for a period of not less than 7 days. 2. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The contention of the learned SDR is that, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e a contention that recovery is sought to be made without issuing notice as contemplated under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. He also refers in this connection to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CC v. Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd., 1992 (59) E.L.T. 633. As against this, the learned SDR has submitted that in regard to units under Compounded Levy Scheme, the question of short levy pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 96ZO contains specific provisions of abatement of duty in the event of closure of units. Thus, the provisions in Rule 96ZO(3) are in contrast to the earlier provisions. The Supreme Court also specifically held in Para 9 of its judgment in the case of CCE & C v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd., supra, that no abatement will be available to a unit working under Rule 96ZO(3). In the position emerging above, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X