Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 220 - HC - Central ExciseExemption from payment of tax - benefit under proviso to Sub-Section (3) or Sub-Section (4) of Section 3A - abatement under Sub-section (3) of Section 3A - Held that:- Once Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 96ZP of the Rules provides for filing of an application for abatement, it is just un-understandable as to how any exception can be taken by the Department, to the order passed in it. It is a different matter if the appellant is of the view that the respondent has run the factory during that period. That however is not the case. The main plank of the argument is that an application for abatement under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 96ZP of the Rules is barred under Sub-Rule (3) thereof. We do not find such mandate therein. - Sub-Rule (3) creates the facility of payment of certain amount in accordance with the formula incorporated therein and the same would constitute compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The only rider added in that was that a manufacturer, who avails the benefit under Sub-Rule (2) shall not be entitled to claim the benefit under proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 3A of the Act. The application in the instant case is not under that provision. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 96ZP of the Rules does not bar the filing of applications under Sub-Rule (2). It was not even alleged that after availing the benefit under Sub-Rule (2), the respondent got the benefit under Sub-Rule (3) or vice versa - Decided against Revenue.
|