9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order]. - In this appeal, the challenge is against the order of the Commissioner rejecting the appellants' claim for abatement of duty for the period 16-3-2000 to 31-3-2000 during which the appellants' Hot Air Stenter was remaining closed. The Commissioner appears to have rejected the appellants' claim on two grounds, firstly on the ground that the intimation of closure of the stenter give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the second ground on which the abatement claim was rejected by the Commissioner, the learned Counsel submits that clause (a) of Rule 96ZQ(7), as it stood during the material period, provided that abatement was applicable on the complete closure of Hot Air Stenter and not in the case of only one or more chambers. In the instant case, Counsel submits, the entire stenter had been closed down as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner did not look at the matter in that manner. To be fair to the Commissioner, it has to be observed that at no stage of the proceedings did the party raise the plea that they could not give closure intimation within time on account of intervening holidays. However, such an omission should not have stood in the way of the Commissioner taking cognizance of any intervening holiday. In s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the case. However, the Commissioner should re-examine the question whether the appellants' claim is liable to be rejected on the ground of belated closure intimation under clause (b) of the above Rule after taking into account any intervening holiday Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
