MAHAJAN PROCESSORS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the challenge is against the order of the Commissioner rejecting the appellants' claim for abatement of duty for the period 16 -3 -2000 to 31 -3 -2000 during which the appellants' Hot Air Stenter was remaining closed. The Commissioner appears to have rejected the appellants' claim on two grounds, firstly on the ground that the intimation of closure of the stenter given by the appellants under Rule 96ZQ(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was late by one day and secondly on the ground that the entire factory of the appellants had not been closed down during the said period.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the closure intimation had been given by letter dated 10 -3 -2000 which was received by the Department on 13 -3 -2000. He further submits that the 11th and 12th March, 2000, being Saturday and Sunday, were holidays for the Department and, therefore, intimation could be actually given only on 13th March, 2000 (Monday). As per clause (b) of Rule 96ZQ(7), the last date for giving closure intimation in this case was 12th March, 2000 but that day was a holiday. The intimation, therefore, could be given only on the next day. Referring to the second ground on which the abatement claim was rejected by the Commissioner, the learned Counsel submits that clause (a) of Rule 96ZQ(7), as it stood during the material period, provided that abatement was applicable on the complete closure of Hot Air Stenter and not in the case of only one or more chambers. In the instant case, Counsel submits, the entire stenter had been closed down as intimated to the Department in the appellants' letter dated 10 -3 -2000. The learned DR reiterates the findings recorded by the Commissioner.

(3.) In so far as the first ground on which the Commissioner rejected the appellants' claim is concerned, I find that the closure intimation under clause (b) of Rule 96ZQ(7) was received by the Department on 13 -3 -2000. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the intimation could not be given on 12 -3 -2000 as that day was a Sunday, a holiday for the Department. Clause (b) prescribed that closure intimation should be given atleast three days prior to the date of closure. Apparently situations involving intervening holidays were not foreseen under the Rule. In such cases, provisions of the General Clauses Act, should to apply. Obviously, the Commissioner did not look at the matter in that manner. To be fair to the Commissioner, it has to be observed that at no stage of the proceedings did the party raise the plea that they could not give closure intimation within time on account of intervening holidays. However, such an omission should not have stood in the way of the Commissioner taking cognizance of any intervening holiday. In so far as the second ground on which the Commissioner rejected the appellants' claim is concerned, I note that he did not apply clause (a) of Rule 96ZQ correctly to the facts of the case. Admittedly, one full stenter was closed down by the appellants as intimated to the Department in their letter. The above clause prescribed that the availment of abatement shall be applicable only to complete closure of Hot Air Stenter and not to closure of some of its chambers. That clause did not prescribe that all the stenters in the factory should be closed down. In the instant case, one of the Hot Air stenters was under complete closure and, therefore, the provisions of the Rule were applicable to the case.