9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er]. - The dispute in this case relates to interpretation of the provisions of Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 relating to payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme. The appellants claimed abatement on account of closure of their mill from 1-7-1999 to 2-8-1999 and from 2-8-1999 to 30-1-1999. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that, the appellants were required to make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for the period 1-7-1999 to 2-8-1999, it is held that, the appellant is entitled for abatement for the period of 31 days of July 99. Thereafter, the closure of the stenter being only for two days i.e. 1-8-1999 and 2-8-1999, while the abatement for the complete month of July 1999 has been permitted, the closure for the month of August 1999 being less than seven days, the appellants were asked t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned on 2-8-1999, the appellant were required to pay duty for the entire month of August 1999 and then directed to seek abatement for the period 1-8-2000 to 2-8-2000. Hence the claim for abatement was rejected. 5. Similarly, the claim in respect of stenter No. 85527 for the period from 2-8-1999 to 31-8-1999 was disallowed on the ground that though the abatement has been claimed for more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y liability for each of the calendar month has to be abated separately. In other words, according to the Commissioner the broken period which spills over the succeeding month has to be reckoned as a separate period of abatement and not in continuation of the period of closure exceeding one month. 7. Heard both sides. 8. It is revealed that interpretation adopted by the Commissioner lac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
