Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Mandovi Metals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa

2015 (10) TMI 422 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Denial of abatement claim - production capacity based duty - whether appellant is entitled for abatement as provided under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- Appellant indeed, have been intimating to the department from time to time vide various correspondence regarding the closure and restarting of the production in their factory. Ld. Commissionerís finding for rejecting the claim of abatement is boiled down on only one aspect that is during intimating closure of the produ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

time to the department, correspondence of the electricity department and the facts narrated in Honíble Bombay High Court at Goa bench there is no dispute that production of the appellant factory remained closed during the period declared by them to the department and this fact also not disputed by the Ld. Commissioner. - appellant is legally entitled for abatement and accordingly the demand is not sustainable. We therefore set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee. - Applicat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; Central Excise Goa, wherein total demand of ₹ 54,04,368/- was confirmed in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A penalty of equal amount and interest on the demand was also confirmed. The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of mild steel ingots falling under chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant filed declaration dated 10/11/1997 with the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa for availing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

according to such fixation capacity of the induction furnace installed in the appellant s factory was fixed at 3 M.T. and accordingly appellant is required to pay Central Excise duty of ₹ 5 lakhs per month. Since the appellant did not pay full amount of Central Excise duty during the period of October, 1997 to March, 2000, five show cause notices were issued demanding total duty of ₹ 54,04,368/-. In the first round of adjudication the authority vide order-in-original No. 10/Commr. G .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

therefore appellant is before us. 2. Shri. S. Sunil, Ld Counsel for the appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner has wrongly rejected the abatement claim of the appellant on the ground of non fulfillment of procedural requirements. He submits that the appellant had intimated the department regarding the closure of the factory as well as restarting of production. The appellant also submitted that electricity bill for the relevant period which justifies fact that factory was remained closed. It .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e fact that 20 days for every month there was no power supply in the factory. In the Hon ble High Court order dated 12/6/1998 while discussing writ petition of the appeal disclosed that Ld Advocate acknowledged the fact that power supply cut to the appellant factory. This vital fact was available on record before Ld. Commissioner and same was recorded in the impugned order. Despite all these undisputed fact and evidences, Ld. Commissioner went on rejecting the claim of abatement to the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h a situation merely for non intimating the particular hours can not be reason for denial the abatement. In support of his submission he placed reliance on this Tribunal judgments in the case of Bata Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh[2007(219) E.L.T. 539(Tri. Del)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Daksh Steels Pvt. Ltd [2004(178) E.L.T. 446 (Tri. Del)] . He submits that in view of the above facts the appellant is entitled for the abatement and appeal may be all .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that even though the appellant had informed the department about closure of the unit on particular date and starting of the production on particular date but failed to inform the department as to the period for which the unit was continuously closed from particular hours of particular day to particular hours of particular day. In this regard we have perused the relevant documents such as intimation given to the department, electricity bill, High C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was remained closed from 20/12/1997 and now it is ready for production from today, vide letter dated 22/2/1998 it was informed to the Asstt. Commissioner that the furnace is going to remain closed due to technical problem of furnace, vide letter dated 9/2/1998 it was intimated to the Commissioner that the furnace remain closed and now it is ready for production from today. Vide letter dated 9/3/1998 informed to the Asstt. Commissioner that furnace is remained closed. Vide letter dated 16/3/1998 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing date and time and number of days of closure. We also gone through the letter from the electricity department wherein it can be seen that there was power restrictions imposed on the appellant s factory. This also goes on proving that factory remained closed as intimated by the appellants from time to time. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel it is seen from the Hon ble Bombay High Court at Goa bench judgment in the case of appellant in writ petition No. 219/98 dated 12/6/1998 that there was no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version