Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Kirpal Steel (P) Ltd. vs Cce, Chandigarh on 10 May, 2001
ORDER Ms Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh who has rejected claims for abatement of duty for the period from 1.3.98 to 12.2.98 and 2.4.98 to 20.4.98, filed by the appellants herein who are manufacturers of non-alloy steel ingots/ billets etc. The claim for the first period has been rejected on the ground that they did not submit the continuous closure declaration in terms of Rule 86 ZO(2)(E) and claim for the second period has been rejected on the ground that they did not intimate to the Assistant Commissioner about closure neither prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure but only on the date after the closure.
2. I have heard Shri K.K. Anand Ld. Adv. and Shri Jagdish Singh, Ld. Dr. I find that appellants have filed declaration on 12.2.98 stating that their furnace was closed from 3.2.98 at 8.00 am until 12.2.98 at 9.00 a.m., Therefore allegation of the department that continuous closure declaration was not filed is factually incorrect. As far as second period is concerned. I find that intimation of closure was submitted on 3.4.98 and the electric meter reading could not be given due to damage of electric meter. They have given the continuous closure declaration also. The department does not dispute the fact that the furnace was not operative during the above period. The explanation offered by the appellant for inability to intimate closure on 2.4.98 viz awaiting certificate from PSEB, authorities is satisfactory. Therefore, there is no ground for rejection of abatement claims.
3. In the result I hold that the appellants are entitled to abatement of duty for the period 3.2.98 to 12.2.98 and 2.4.98 to 20.4.98. I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.