TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribed under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules to avail the abatement. The Appellant explained the reasons for not submitting the Meter reading every time they closed the production and gave the intimation letter to the concerned authorities. The Appellant submits that they could not produce the reading of Electricity Meter every time they closed the production as the Meter room was sealed and fully kept under the control of West Bengal State Electricity Board - the reason given by the Appellant is not convincing. It is found that the Appellant claimed the abatement for 188 days at various periods of intervals during the period 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000. The first period for which abatement sought was for a period of 24 days fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-start of the production at various periods of intervals - the Appellant has not fulfilled all the conditions as prescribed in Rule 96 ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to claim the abatements - the Appellant are not entitled to claim the abatement for the 188 days as claimed by them, as they have not fulfilled all conditions as prescribed under Rule 96ZO(20 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner is upheld - appeal dismissed. - MR. R. MURALIDHAR MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri N. K. Chowdhury, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closing balance of stock of the ingots and billets of n0n-alloy steel. (c) the Appellant shall inform in writing the re-starting of the production to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, either prior to the date of starting the production or on the date of starting the production (d) On restart of the production, the Appellant shall intimate the reading of the Electricity Meter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise (e) While sending the intimation under (c) as mentioned above, the Appellant shall declare that his factory remained closed for a continuous period starting from -----hours on ----date to ----hours o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.07.2002 issued by the SE, WBSEB, wherein it has been stated that the Electricity Meter was kept under the seal of WBSEB and no other person except the authorized representative of the Board has access to the room where the Electricity Meter is kept. Accordingly, they contended that they have fulfilled all conditions prescribed under Rule 96ZO(2) except submitting the Meter reading, which was beyond their control. The Ld. Commissioner has rejected the abatement claimed by the Appellant as the electricity meter reading at the time of closure and re-start of the Unit was not submitted. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 5. In their grounds of appeal, the Appellant submits that they have intimated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. The issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether the appellant is eligible to claim the abatement for 188 days at various periods of intervals during the period 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000, as provided under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner has rejected the abatement claimed by the Appellant under Rule 96 ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the ground that they have not fulfilled all the condition as prescribed in the said Rules. We find that all the conditions prescribed in Rule 96ZO(2) and detailed at para 2 supra are mandatory conditions required to be fulfilled by the Appellant to avail the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduction of goods from 25/10/97 onwards, they would have either used the electricity provided by the state electricity board or used other source of power from generating sets. If the electricity connection is given again on 25/10/97, they could have easily informed the department about the meter reading at the time of reopening the meters. If the appellant has used other source of power for production, then they should have produced those evidences to the department to substantiate their claim that during the period of closure claimed by them they have not used the other source of power for producing the goods, to claim the abatement. We find that the Appellant has produced neither of the above to convince the department that no productio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
