Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sri Padma Balaji Steels (P) Ltd vs Cce Coimbatore on 24 March, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/197/2002
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.03/2002/
COMMISSIONER dated 7.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Mr. P.KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Sri Padma Balaji Steels (P) Ltd.
Appellant/s
Versus
CCE Coimbatore
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri M.Karthikeyan, Consultant Shri N.J.Kumaresh, SDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 24.3.2009 Date of decision : 24.3.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The claim of the assessees for abatement on the ground that the factory was closed for 9 days and 10 days respectively during the period 18.5.98 to 27.5.98 and 17.6.98 to 27.6.98 have been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that since closure was for a period of less than one month, the assessee ought to have paid duty liability and then sought abatement, in terms of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2) We have heard both sides and perused the rule in question and find that there is no such stipulation contained therein. Even in case of Rule 96ZQ, where there is such a condition prescribed, the Tribunal has held in the case of Varun Silk Mills P.Ltd. Vs CCE Surat, 2007 (214) ELT 227 (Tri.-Ahmd.) that abatement benefit is a substantial benefit which cannot be denied only on the ground that the assessee did not pay duty first and then claim abatement. In the absence of any such condition in Rule 96ZO, which is relevant rule in the present case, the benefit of abatement should have been extended. The Commissioner has read into a rule which something does not exist. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P.KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) MEMBER (T) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 1 3