MAHARAJA PROCESSORS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against denial of abatement claim of the appeal under Rule 96ZQ(7). The appellant was a textile processor and was discharging Central Excise duty under compounded levy scheme. The processing was being carried out by using one stenter and the appellant had already discharged duty for the month of March 2000. The appellant filed his letter dated 10th March 2000 in the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi by way of intimation about closure of the stenter. This letter stated as under: "We would like to declare that we have decided to terminate all the facilities for carrying out bleaching, dyeing, printing of woven fabrics from our factory for which we will stop all above noted process of woven fabrics at 23.00 hrs of 15.3.2000 and thereafter will dismental all the concerned machineries i.e. stenter, jiggers, wintches. You are requested please accept our intimation and issue orders to the needful."

(2.) The claim of abatement was for the period from 16.3.2000 to 31.3.2000. Copies of the letters were independently given to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent also. Pursuant to this letter the appellant's stenter was sealed by Central Excise Officer on 15.3.2000. All the same the appellants' claim for abatement was rejected under the impugned order. Two grounds have been taken in the order. The first being is that in terms of Sub -rule A of Rule 7 of Rule 97ZQ, the appellant should have informed in writing about the closure "atleast three days prior to the date of the closure." But in the present case, though the closure was from 2300 hours on 15.3.2000, the application has been filed only on 13.3.2000. The second ground is that the abatement is applicable "only on complete closure of the factory and not on closure of a stenter in terms of Sub -clause (9) of Sub -rule (7) of Rule 96ZQ. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the Deputy Commissioner has reported that "only fabrics section of the factory was closed".

(3.) The contention of the appellant is that the impugned order is entirely erroneous on both counts. It is being pointed out that, in terms of Section 10 of General Clauses Act, the Commissioner should have excluded the holiday 13.3.2000 and taken the intimation as filed within time. On the second issue, the appellant's contention is that since there was only one stenter working in the premises, its closure should have been treated as closure of the factory. It is further being pointed out that, in the present case, since the appellant had discontinued the processing activity altogether w.e.f. 15.3.2000 by dismantling the machinery, there could be no finding that the appellant had not closed the factory.