TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of the appellants for abatement of duty in terms of Rule 96ZO. Appellants unit remained closed during different periods in September, October and November, 1997. Therefore, they claimed remission in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Act and Rule 96ZO. The Commissioner, however, rejected their claim on the ground that appellants would be eligible for abatement only if the factory remain closed. He has held as follows :- If the assessee wants to seek abatement, he has to necessarily fulfill the conditions in toto without any let-up. Even if one condition is flouted he is not eligible for the abatement. In the instant case, as indicated in paragraph supra, the assessee has flouted at least one condition in each of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of already manufactured goods. Ld. Counsel also submits that the Commissioner was in error in interpretating the provisions relating to the intimation. He submits that the only requirement under the rule is that the intimation should be filed either prior to the day of closure or on the day of closure. In the facts of this case, appellants had filed intimation regarding closure on the date of closure itself. He, further, contends that in any event, the abatement should be provided to appellants from the date of intimation even if there was delay in intimating the closure. 3. In support of his contentions, ld. Counsel draws our attention to the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Hyderabad Public Notice No. 26/98 dated 30-4-98 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods manufactured earlier. Hence, in the circumstances, the factory/manufacturer would be eligible to claim abatement when he has not produced the notified goods for a period of not less than seven days even if he has cleared goods during this period. 6. It is clear from the above paragraph that appellants were eligible for the abatement as the fact of their having not produced the goods during the period is not disputed. With regard to the second objection taken by the Commissioner that the intimation should be filed prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure and in the event of any delay in filing the intimation the claim for abatement would not be permissible even for the periods subsequent to the intimation, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
