Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Tribunal

U.P. Alloys (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 6 July, 1999

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
U.P. Alloys (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 6 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 (113) ELT 495 Tri Del


ORDER

P.C. Jain, Vice President

1. The impugned order in the present appeal denies the abatement claims filed by the appellant herein for 9-1-1998 to 16-1-1998 for non-complying with the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Findings of the adjudicating authority rejecting the said claims are that the appellants herein have not filed the intimation of closure of furnace on or before the date of closure and they have also not given the particulars of RG 1 stock and electrical meter readings.

2. Learned Advocate Shri R. Santhanam has taken us through the relevant closure informations with regard to the first party. We observe that closure information was submitted by the appellant on 9-1-1998. There is a receipt of the concerned Inspector of Central Excise and the information was given by way of telegram. The information also discloses the RG 1 ingot stock as also the reading of the electricity meter. We are therefore satisfied that the appellants are entitled to the said claim for the period 9-1-1998 to 15-1-1999 inasmuch as they have given information regarding working of the furnace on 16-1-1998.

3. As regards the information provided for the period i.e. 25-3-1998 to 31-3-1998. We observe from the relevant closure information that it was received in the office of the Central Excise only on 26-3-1998. Therefore the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) have not been complied with as held by the adjudicating authority. At this stage learned Advocate Shri R. Santhanam prays for an appropriate proportional abatement for 6 days instead of 7 days i.e. from 26-3-1998 to 31-3-1998. We are unable to accede to the said prayer of the learned Advocate as both the Act and the Rules [Section 3A(3) and Rule 96ZO(2)] envisage that the abatement cannot be for a period less than 7 days. Therefore the appellants are not entitled to any abatement for the period 25-3-1998 to 31-3-1998.

4. The impugned order is modified to the above extent. Appeal is disposed of in the above manner. Since the appeal is disposed of the stay petition gets disposed of.