Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1805 - AT - Central ExciseRejection of Abatement claim - manufacture of Ingots - Compound Levy Scheme - denial of abatement on the ground that conditions prescribed under Rule 96ZO(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 were not fulfilled - scope of SCN - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has been passed denying the abatement stating that the duty abatement was restricted under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules which was never the allegation in the show cause notice and therefore, by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CCE VERSUS SHITAL INTERNATIONAL [2010 (10) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT] it is held that the impugned order is bad as the same has been passed beyond the scope of show cause notice. Further, the appellant has proved that they are eligible for abatement under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The amendment in Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further, the restriction under sub-section (3) of Section 3A has been removed w.e.f. 01.09.1997 vide Notification No. 44/97-CE dt.30.08.1997 and the disputed period in this case is from 14.11.1998 to 14.12.1998 and therefore, the restriction under Rule 96ZO(3) is not applicable and therefore, the appellants are eligible for abatement under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case, the intimation was given in time which was the requirement of the Rule. The alleged delay was only due to days being Saturday and Sunday, which is justified reason - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|