JANKI PROCESSORS AND ORS. Vs. CCE, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above captioned appeals have been directed against a common Order -in -Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the abatement claim of the appellants for the period 24.2.2000 to 29.2.2000.; The facts of the case are not much in dispute and are common in all these three appeals. All the appellants are engaged in the processing of man made fabrics. In the factory of the appellant No. 1, M/s. Janki Processors, the stenter remained closed from 24.2.2000 to 29.2.2000, while in the factory of the appellant No. 2, M/s. TPL Industries, it had remained closed from 24.2.2000 to 14.3.2000 and in the factory of the appellant No. 3, M/s. Ranjan processors, the same remained closed from 24.2.2000 to 28.3.2000. Prior to 1.3.2000, the abatement could be claimed by the manufacturer, if one of his stenters had remained closed for continuous period of seven days. But through Notification No. 11/2000 (NT) it was made mandatory that for claiming the abatement all the stenters in the factory of the manufacturer must have remained closed for continuous period of seven days. However, that notification was superceded by another Notification No. 31/2000 (NT) and from 1.4.2000 the original position which was existed prior to 1.3.2000 was restored i.e. closure of one stenter for claiming the abatement of duty by the processors, was sufficient. The appellants in view of the Notification No. 11/2000, laid their claim for abatement of duty only for the period 24.2.2000 to 29.2.2000 as for remaining period, the claim was not admissible under Notification No. 11/2000.

(2.) THE authorities below have rejected the claim of the appellants on the ground that since their stenter, remained closed for less than seven days, in terms of Rule 96ZQ(7) of the Rules, The learned Counsel has contended that the stenter of the appellants remained closed for period more than seven days but they were entitled to the abatement of duty only for the five days as claimed by them, in view of the Notification No. 11/2000 -CE (NT), therefore their abatement claim could not be rejected.

(3.) I have gone through the record. From the resumption of the facts detailed above, to hold that the appellants' stenter remained closed for less than seven days would be apparently erroneous. The stenter installed in the factory of the appellants factory remained closed for more than seven days as is evident from the facts detailed above and, if there had been no Notification No. 11/2000 -CE referred to above depriving the processors from claiming the abatement of duty unless their all stenters had remained closed for continuous period of seven days, the appellants would have been entitled to the abatement for the entire closure period. It is only by virtue of this notification that their claim for the abatement became inadmissible for the other period except the period in question of five days i.e. 24.2.2000 to 29.2.2000, although their one stenter remained closed for more than seven days. Therefore, the view taken up by the authorities below that since the stenter in the factory of the appellants remained closed for less than seven days, they were not entitled to the abatement of duty for the disputed period of five days, is wholly erroneous in law and as such it cannot be sustained. The appellants are entitled to the abatement of duty for the period in dispute for which they have claimed under Rule 96ZQ(7) of the rules. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order is set aside. The appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.