Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) the manufacturer shall inform in writing about the closure to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise either prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure;

(b) the manufacturer shall intimate the reading of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy of the Superintendent of Central Excise, immediately after the production in his factory is stopped along with the closing balance of stock of the hot re-roiled products of non alloy steel;

I have examined the intimations of closure and re-start of production submitted by the party vis-a-vis the conditions laid down in Rule 96ZP(2) and I have observed that in respect of closures mentioned at serial No. 4, 7 and 10 of above table for the year 1998-99, the party had failed to observe condition No. (a) of Rule 96ZP(2) in as much as they failed to submit the required intimation of closure of their factory to the Deputy/assistant Commissioner either prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure. It has further been observed that in respect of closures mentioned at serial No. 1,8, and 10, the party had failed to observe condition No. (b) of Rule 96ZP(2) in as such as in place of giving closing balance of the stock, they have mentioned opening balance of the stock. Similarly in respect of closures mentioned at Serial Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the table for the years 1998-99, the party had failed to observe condition No. (d) of Rule 96ZP(2) in the intimations of resumption of production in as much as in place of giving closing balance of the stock of the finished product the party had given opening balance. Further in respect of all the closures during 1998-99, the party had failed to observe condition No. (e) of Rule 96ZP(2) except in the case of closure mentioned at Serial No. 13.

It can be seen from the above findings that the adjudicating authority while deciding on the abatement claim of year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 has considered the facts of only the year 1998-99 and came to conclusion that the claims are liable to be rejected. To my mind this approach is not correct, in as much that I find from the documents produced before me that the appellants have given the intimations required under Rule 96ZP(2) for the year 1999-2000. They have adhered to the provisions in to-to and the adjudicating authority has not considered the same in his order in original. To my mind the said order denying the abatement claim for the year 1999-2000 is vitiated as it is not even cursorily referring to the documents of the period 1999-2000. In respect of documents produced by the appellant for the period 1998-99, the adjudicating authority has faulted with only the possible typographical errors in respect of mentioning of opening balance in place of closing balance which may be due to bona-fide mistake. This cannot be a ground for rejecting the legitimate claim of the appellant for abatement. Further, I observe that the adjudicating authority has rejected the abatement claim of appellant for the year 1998-99 for non-adherence to Clause (e) of Rule 96ZP(2) which requires the appellant to give certificate of period of closure. In this connection, if the letters of intimation of closure and restart of production submitted by the appellant to the authorities are read together, the factum of continuous closure of furnace could be prudently derived. This in itself should enough to grant the abatement claim.