9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the order passed in Appeal No. E/1416/2000 on 5-11-2004 [2005 (191) E.L.T. 737 (Tribunal) by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore. 2. The appellant claimed for abatement of Central Excise Duty relating to their 5 MT furnace in terms of condition (e) under sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO. The appellant's factory was closed for a period from 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner committed an error in reckoning the period as referred in Rule 96ZO(2) and rejected the claim of the appellant erroneously though the appellant's factory was remain shut down continuously for a period of seven days. He further contended that there is a clear seven days stoppage of functioning of the manufacture and therefore, the appellant is entitled to rebate. Without proper appreciatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction (3) of section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the abatement will be allowed by an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise of such amount as may be specified in such order, subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions viz. : (a) the manufacturer shall inform in writing about the closure to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; the manufacturer shall on start of production again along with the closing balance of stock on restarting the factory, intimate the reading of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise; (e) the manufacturer shall while sending intimation under clause (c), declare that his factory remained c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 7. Further, from a perusal of the judgment supra reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant supports the contention of the department rather than the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. In that view of the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and we do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
