STEEL INDUSTRIES OF HINDUSTAN Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order -in -original dated 27.10.2005 wherein the abatement claims filed by the appellants were rejected.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of hot re -rolled products of non -alloy steel, and working under the Annual Capacity of Production Scheme as envisaged under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Hot Re -rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. Under the said Rules the appellants are eligible to claim the abatement if the Re -rolling Mill is closed for a continuous period of not less than 7 days. The appellant vide their letter dated 13.4.99 claimed an abatement for 217 days closure for different period during the year 1998 -99 and vide letter dated 17.4.2000 claimed an abatement for 197 days for different period during the year 1999 -2000. In the de -novo proceedings the adjudicating authority was directed to decide the abatement claims of the appellant expeditiously in accordance with law. The adjudicating authority after granting the appellant a personal hearing, decided the abatement claims of the appellants for the year 1998 -99 and 1999 -2000. The adjudicating authority in his order has rejected the abatement claims filed by the appellant for the year 1998 -99 and 1999 -2000. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the findings of the adjudicating authority is not factual. It was also contended that the adjudicating authority has blindly applied the provision of Rule 96ZP without examining the bonafide claim for abatement. It was submitted that the appellants have followed the provisions of the Rule 96ZP correctly and whatever errors are noticed are not that very detrimental to the cause of giving abatement claimed by the appellant. He produces copies of all the intimations filed by them of both years, to the authorities.