2018 (11) TMI 1137 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Valuation – compounded levy scheme – section 3A(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 – whether the appellant is eligible for abatement during the period when the rolling mill was shutdown / non-functional? – Held that:- The Commissioner has permitted to furnish copies of letters dated 1.10.1998 and 1.10.1999 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 rejection of abatement is without basis – Appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/361/2012 – Final Order No. 42417/2018 – Dated:- 14-9-2018 – 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
law, the original authority rejected the claim of abatement against which the appellant moved the Tribunal. Vide order dated 7.4.2010, the matter was remanded for denovo consideration. Thereupon, the adjudicating authority vide order impugned herein confirmed the rejection of abatement claim. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri S. Venkatachalam submitted that the claim for abatement has been rejected for the reason that the appellant 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 cop
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
for abatement. As per this rule, the appellant has to give intimation to the department informing the department the period during which the unit is shut down and the reasons for closing down. In para 4 and 4.1, the Commissioner has noted that no such intimation was received from the part of the appellant. However, in page 44 of the appeal memo, the letter issued by department dated 6.5.2003 is enclosed. In such letter, the Commissioner has permitted to furnish copies of letters dated 1.10.1998 and 1.10.1999 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 Tri
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =