TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey filed two claims for the aforesaid periods claiming that the factory remained closed. On an examination of the aforesaid claims, it was observed by the Central Excise Officers that the appellants had not complied with the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 96 ZO. The discrepancies noticed were (i) the closure intimation of factory had not been given in writing either prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure, (ii) the reading of the electricity meter had not been given when the production was stopped in the factory, (iii) at the time of re-starting, the balance stock of the factory was not intimated in writing either prior to the date of startin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of closure and the raw material available on the date of closure because an FIR was lodged against the assessee and the intimation was filed hurriedly. He submits that since the intimation was given and the records were sufficient to show the closing balance and the opening balance and not only the finished products but also of the raw material. He submits that the authorities below had not examined their position in the facts and circumstances of the appellants position during that time, he prays that the appeal may be allowed by remand. In support of his contention, he cites and relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Raj Ratan Castings (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur contained in the Final Order No. 214/2000-NB(DB), dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below rightly disallowed their abatement claim. 5. We have heard submissions of both the sides and also perused the evidence on record as well as the cases cited and relied upon by the appellants. We find that in the instant case, the dispute is that the appellants did not furnish not only the meter reading but also the stock of raw material and finished products on the date of closure from which abatement claim was preferred. We find that in the case of U.P. Alloys (P) Ltd. cited and relied upon by the appellants, the issue decided was the date from which the abatement claim should be effective. Thus the issue in that case was entirely different from the one in the present case. 6. In the case of M/s. Mangalore Chemicals Fertilize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
