TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal. The challenge is made to the findings in the impugned order that an assessee working under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules is entitled to abatement of duty in case the units remain closed for a period of not less than 7 days. 2. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The contention of the learned SDR is that, the impugned order is contrary to the law settled by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t issuing notice as contemplated under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. He also refers in this connection to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CC v. Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd., 1992 (59) E.L.T. 633. As against this, the learned SDR has submitted that in regard to units under Compounded Levy Scheme, the question of short levy proceedings and recovery under Section 11A do not arise. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the event of closure of units. Thus, the provisions in Rule 96ZO(3) are in contrast to the earlier provisions. The Supreme Court also specifically held in Para 9 of its judgment in the case of CCE C v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd., supra, that no abatement will be available to a unit working under Rule 96ZO(3). In the position emerging above, we hold in favour of the Revenue. The learned Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
