1999 (9) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice President]. The impugned order in the present appeal denies the abatement claims filed by the appellant herein for 9-1-1998 to 16-1-1998 for non-complying with the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Findings of the adjudicating authority rejecting the said claims are that the appellants herein have not filed the intimation of closure of fu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eriod i.e. 25-3-1998 to 31-3-1998. We observe from the relevant closure information that it was received in the office of the Central Excise only on 26-3-1998. Therefore the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) have not been complied with as held by the adjudicating authority. At this stage learned Advocate Shri R. Santhanam prays for an appropriate proportional abatement for 6 days instead of 7 days i.e. f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X