Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Shree Sidhi Ispat Corporation vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 14 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(149)ELT600(TRI-MUMBAI)
JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar,Member(T)
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent.
2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the eligibility to abatement, provided in Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 3 of the Act that the appellant, who has induction furnace, had claimed. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO prescribes conditions subject to which abatement shall be granted. Clause (b) of this sub-rule requires the manufacturer to intimate the figures of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent of Central Excise immediately before production in its factory is stopped. Clause (e) requires him to declare, when he starts production again that his factory remain closed for a continuous period, indicating the time and date of commencement of closure and time and date of its completion. In the order impugned in the appeal before us, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Deputy Commissioner that, in the absence of these particulars, the appellant was not entitled to abatement.
3. In its decision in Shivansi Ferrous (P) Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (127) ELT 413 a bench of this Tribunal was concerned with the applicability of the condition contained in Sub-clause (C). The Tribunal considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant that it was not possible for it to intimate the details of the electric meter because it had been sealed, but that the fact that no electricity had been consumed could be established by the bills sent by the electricity authorities. It remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for consideration this evidence. No doubt, as the departmental representative contends, it is not argued in the case before us that the electric meter was not accessible to the appellant. The object in the clause of providing the details of the electricity meter reading is evidently to ensure that the departmental authorities are able to confirm that the furnace did not actually consume electricity during the period in question. If, by inadvertence the manufacturer fails to intimate this information that inadvertence should not be allowed to be held against him provided that he is able to satisfy the department by means of independent and acceptable evidence. The certificate issued by the Electricity Department of the Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Union Territory, would prima facie prove evidence such independent final evidence. We however express to our opinion of the acceptability of the certificate, but only require the Commissioner to consider this.
4. The date on which the manufacturer stated its furnace and date on which the manufacturer closed the factory have both been communicated to the department. They are contained in the letters of communication of each of these intimations. The continuous period in which the factory remained closed could easily be calculated from this. It is therefore difficult for us to understand the denial of the abatement claimed on this ground.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Deputy Commissioner shall consider the electricity bills that the appellant shall produce before him within two months from the receipt of this order and, after considering such evidence pass orders in accordance with law.