9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial period. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZP read with the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3A, they were entitled to abatement of duty on a proportionate basis for any continuous period of not less than 7 days of non-production of products, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in clauses (a) to (e) of the said sub-rule. On 31-3-98, they submitted to the jurisdictional Commissioner an application for abatement of a total amount of duty of Rs. 5,97,914/- for the following periods totalling to 96 days :- (i) 1-10-97 to 7-10-97 (7 days) (ii) 17-11-97 to 1-12-97 (15 days) (iii) 8-12-97 to 23-12-97 (16 days) (iv) 7-1-98 to 8-2-98 (3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee on the minor technical ground of non-filing of a formal declaration under clause (e). As regards the second ground for rejection of the abatement claim, ld. Counsel submitted that, in most of the letters of intimation of closure and restart of production, the appellants, by mere oversight, happened to show the closing balance of stock as opening balance, which, according to Counsel, did not substantially affect the merits of their abatement claim. He, therefore, submitted that the abatement claim for the entire period ought to have been allowed by the adjudicating authority. Ld. JDR, Shri H.C. Verma reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. 4. Examined the submissions. 5. The abatement claim for the period 1-10-97 to 7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the remaining five periods, the abatement claim has been rejected on two grounds. One of these is the same as the aforesaid ground of non-filing of declaration under clause (e). In this connection, I observe that the periods are in the range of 10 to 33 days vide items (ii) to (vi) in para (1) of this order. In respect of each of these periods, if the letters of intimation of closure and restart of production submitted by the appellants to the Asstt. Commissioner are read together, the factum of continuous closure of furnace from the date of closure could be prudently discerned. However, in the absence of mention of the exact time of closure and the exact time of restart in the letters of intimation of closure and restart, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted by the manufacturer under clauses (b) and (d) of Rule 96ZP(2). On this basis, the present appellants should be granted abatement of duty only for the following periods :- (i) 18-11-97 to 30-11-97 (13 days) (ii) 9-12-97 to 22-12-97 (14 days) (iii) 8-1-98 to 7-2-98 (31 days) (iv) 24-2-98 to 8-3-98 (13 days) (v) 18-3-98 to 25-3-98 (8 days) 6. In the result, the claim for abatement of duty for the period 1-10-97 to 7-10-97 is rejected and the claim for abatement of duty for the rest of the periods is allowed to the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
