9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. 33539/04 has been preferred against the order in original dated 19-4-2004 vide which the Commissioner has confirmed the duty demand against the appellants as detailed therein. 2. We have heard both the sides. 3. The learned Counsel has contended that abatement claims for the period in dispute have been wrongly disallowed by the adjudicating authority, when due intimation regarding the closure of the furnace was given by the appellants to the competent authority and the period for which the furnace had remained closed, had not been disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order passed in this appeal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the periods 7-11-97 to 22-11-97, 24-11-97 to 9-12-97, 12-12-97 to 27-12-97, 29-12-97 to 13-1-98, 15-1-98 to 30-1-98, 1-2-98 to 17-2-98 and 7-3-98 to 23-2-98 on the ground that the entire factory was not closed during these periods. He has referred to the ratio of law laid down in M/s. Waryam Steel Castings supra. But the view taken by the adjudicating authority in this regard cannot be accepted. 7. Both the furnaces installed by the appellants in their factory, as observed above, had been working independently and their production during the disputed period were recorded separately in separate records, by the appellants. Both the furnaces had also independent electricity connections and whenever any furnace was closed, the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration by the department to each furnace w.e.f. 1-4-98. The ratio of law laid down in M/s. Waryam Steel Castings (supra) could not be applied to the case of the appellants as in that case, there was no independent installation of meter and maintenance of record by the assessee regarding the production of each furnace and at no stage, separate independent registration in respect of each unit/furnace was granted to the assessee. It was for these reasons, the Tribunal took the view that the abatement was not permissible for non-closure of the entire unit/factory. But in the present case, the facts and circumstances detailed above are quite different. 9. In the light of discussion made above, the adjudicating authority has, in our view, wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
