Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1504 - CESTAT CHENNAIAbatement claim - Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - reason for rejection of abatement is that appellant did not pay the duty in advance as provided in proviso 96ZO - Held that: - the abatement should be granted without asking him to pay duty first or where he had paid the duty, he should be reimbursed of the amount of duty paid, in terms of the order of abatement issued by the Commissioner. The impugned order is modified to the extent of allowing the abatement for Sl.No.1 and 3 show in the Table for the period 14.04.1999 to 28.04.1999 and 22.10.1999 to 29.10.1999 for an amount of ₹ 4,72,222.30 and ₹ 2,28,494.70 respectively. The remaining part of the impugned order is not disturbed/interfered. Appeal allowed in part.
|