ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of MS ingots and was working under compounded levy scheme during the period September, 1997 to March, 2000. Under the present order, duty demand of over Rs. 1,20,965/- and equal amount of penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellant did not discharged full duty liability due in 1997-98 and 1998-99.
2. The explanation of the assessee was that it was entitled to abatement of duty for the period 2.12.1997 to 9.12.1997 and 30.9.1998 to 15.10.1998. The Commissioner allowed the abatement for the period from 30.9.1998 to 15.10.1998 and rejected the claim for the earlier period on the ground that the same had been rejected by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh on 16.11.1998. The appellant’s submission is that no such order of rejection had been received by it. In order to verify the factual position, the learned Departmental Representative was requested to make available the relevant record of the Commissionerate. Today file C. No. IV (16) C. Levy/IF/26/T/97 has been made available. It contains the office copy of a wireless message dated 17.11.1998 from AC (Tech) Hqrs. Chandigarh II to AC, Ludhiana. This communication states that the Commissioner has rejected the abatement claim of the party for the period 2.12.1997 to 9.12.1997 for not fulfilling the conditions under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The message also requires AC Ludhiana to inform the party accordingly. However, no communication informing the appellant is available in the file. From this, it would appear that while some orders were passed by the Commissioner in file, no communication was sent to the party. That apart, even this communication does not indicate the specific reason for denying the abatement. Only a bald statement that the requirement of rule is not satisfied is available. Thus, the appellant’s claim for abatement has not been properly considered. The claim for the other period (30.9.1998 to 15.10.1998) has also been allowed partly, but no reason for the same is also available in the file.
3. Learned Counsel also submits that imposition of penalty is entirely unjustified in the facts of the case.
4. There is merit in the appellant’s submissions. Abatement claims have not been considered properly. They are required to be considered afresh by the Commissioner. There is also no justification for imposing penalty when, prima facie, abatement was available to the assessee. Accordingly, penalty imposed is set aside. The case is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration of the claims for abatement.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)