Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Jay Iron & Steel Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

2016 (2) TMI 636 - CESTAT 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 been rejected. As regard the lapse of non-declaring the closing stock, we ag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 on 17-01-2000. Regarding non-declaration of continuous closing period, it i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or 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 read with Rule 96ZP(2) of Central Excise Rules. 2. The fact of the case i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 15-01-2000, whereas the intimation was given on 17-01-2000. Thus they failed to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

batement 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 the intimation, it is condonable lapse. He further submits that regarding 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

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) Share Medical Care vs. Union of India - 2007 (209) ELT 321 (S.C.) (iii) Comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t 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 been rejected. As regard the lapse of non-declaring the closing stock, we agr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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