ORDER
Archana Wadhwa
1. We have heard both sides duly represented by Shri K.P. Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhaya, learned JDR for the Revenue.
2. The appellants wee required to discharge their duty liability in accordance with the annual capacity fixed by the proper officer. Shri K.P. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants admits that duty was required to be paid by them in accordance with such capacity instead of paying duty on the actual production. However, he submits that while quatifying the duty amount liable to be paid by the appellants, the Commissioner had not taken into account the non-production of the final product in their factory on account of closure of the same and such abatements, as provided under the law, have not been extended to them. According to Shri Chowdury, the quantum of duty, if abatements are given, would come down considerably. In these circumstances, he makes a prayer for sending back to the Commissioner for reconsideration on the above issue. Shri A.K. Chattopadhaya, learned JDR does not object to the above proposal.
3. In view of what had been explained above we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for considering the appellant’s claim for abatements on the account of closure of the factory and as per law, pass a fresh order. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & pronounced in Court)