M/s. Sri Kannchi Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1137 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 14-9-2018
Appeal No. E/361/2012 – Final Order No. 42417/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri S. Venkatachalam, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The appellants were engaged in manufacture of non-alloy steel and hot re-rolled products etc. During the period from 1.9.1997 to 31.3.2000, the said products were brought under compounded levy scheme of payment of excise duty as contained in proviso to section 3A(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Accordingly, the ACP of the appellant's mill was determined by the Commissioner and communicated to them. The appellant o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
has not complied with sub-clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He adverted to para 4 and 4.1 of the impugned order and submitted that though the appellant has given intimations vide letters dated 1.10.1998 and 1.10.1999 regarding the shutdown of the rolling mill, the department has denied receiving such letters and therefore rejected the abatement claims. It is submitted by him that as per letter dated 6.5.2003, the department themselves have permitted copies of the said letters on request made by the appellant. That therefore they cannot deny receipt of such letters. Further, on merits, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chamundi Steel Castings (India) Ltd. vide Final Order No. 42364 & 42365/2017 dated 26.9.2017 and argued that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chamundi Steel Castings (India) Ltd. has held that the assessee would be eligible for abatement on pro-rata basis during the period of closure o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
.10.1999 to the appellant. The only strong inference that can be drawn from this letter is that the intimations regarding the closure of the factory was received by the department. Therefore, the rejection of abatement on the ground that appellant did not give intimations cannot sustain. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Chamundi Steel Castings (India) Ltd. (supra), had observed that the assessee was eligible for abatement on pro-rata basis and the said decision was followed by the Tribunal in the final order referred supra. Taking the facts of the case into consideration as well as the provision of law and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court followed by us in the above stated final order, we are of the considered view that the rejection of abatement is without basis. The impugned order rejecting the abatement cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Pronounced in court on 14.09.2018)
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =