New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 636 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (2) TMI 636 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 49 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Abatement claim rejected - procedure lapses on which the abatement was rejected are as the appellant failed to declare closing balance of stock, intimation for resumption of production was filed belatedly on 17-01-2000 whereas the production was resumed on 15-01-2000 and failure to declaration continuous closer period - Held that:- All the above lapse are the minor procedure lapse, on that basis abatement could not have be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wever the intimation was filed on 17-1-2000, it is observed that 15th and 16th being Saturday and Sunday were holidays. Therefore, filing of intimation on 17-1-2000 cannot be treated as belated in terms of provision of General Clauses Act, accordingly to which any act to be done on a particular date and if any holiday falls on that date, the next working day shall be treated as date within the period prescribed. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the appellant in filing the intimation o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) For the Petitioner : Shri Sachin Chitnis, Adv. with C.S. Biradar, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri S.V. Nair, AC (AR) ORDER PER : RAMESH NAIR The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 78(33/RT)Commr/04-05 dated 23/02/2005 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Raigad, wherein the Ld. Commissioner rejected the abatement claim for ₹ 19,77,770/- filed by the appellant for the period from 02-09-1999 to November, 1999 under Section 3A(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter dated 17-01-2000. In support of claim, they furnished a copy of letter dated 02-09-1999. Intimation of the closure of production and electric meter reading on 02-09-1999, a copy of letter dated 16-01-2000 was also submitted on 17-01-2000 intimating the resumption of production on 15-01-2000. The abatement claim of the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner vide impugned order on the ground that the appellant failed to declare closing balance of stock. The production was resumed on 15-01- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

plied with substantial process laid down for the purpose of claiming the abatement and only for small infractions in following the process should not be the reason for denial of abatement. He submits that as regard non-declaration of closing balance stock, they are maintaining day to day stock account in their statuary record i.e. RG-1 and also filed returns. The closing stock required to be declared is appearing in the said records. Therefore, even though the closing stock was not declared in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 17-01-2000, which is well within the time in terms of the provision of General Closure Act. In view of above, the appellant have complied the procedure substantially. However, even if, there is non-compliance of the procedure but it is established that the unit was closed for the continuous period, the abatement was allowed in various judgments. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Commr. of C.Ex., Surat-I vs. Sabnam Processors Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (224) ELT 275 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (ii) Sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. We find that the only procedure lapse on which the abatement was rejected are as under: (a) The appellant failed to declare closing balance of stock. (b) Intimation for resumption of production was filed belatedly on 17-01-2000 whereas the production was resumed on 15-01-2000. (c) Failure to declaration continuous closer period. We find that all the above lapse are the minor procedure lapse, on that basis abatement could not have bee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version