2004 (2) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. -  The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are an independent processor as defined in the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The annual production capacity of the Stenter was fixed by the Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mbers with reduced gallery size and dismantling one chamber. Thereafter, the appellants vide letter dated 1-11-1999, to the Revenue Authority to seal the Chambers. The appellants wrote various letters to the Revenue Authorities informing the dismantling and replacement of the old Chamber. After undertaking the necessary repair/replacement of the old Chambers of the stenter, the appellants had info .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 1018 (Tri. - Del.) wherein such situation arises. The Tribunal allowed the refund claim. 7. The contention of the Revenue is that under the provisions of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 there is no provision for refund of duty, the manufacturer is entitled for abatement of duty for the period the stenter remain closed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X