BHILWARA PROCESSORS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE appellant filed this appeal against the order -in -appeal whereby the abatement claim under Rule 96ZQ(7) of Central Excise Rules was rejected on the ground that the abatement was only four days and the rule provides the stenter should remain closed more than seven days

(3.) IN this case, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of processing of man made fabric and were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme. They are discharging the duty as determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise. After taking into consideration the capacity of their stenters, one of the stenter was remained closed from 26th Feb. 2000 to 31.3.2000. The appellant paid duty as for determination however availed the abatement claim. Prior to 1.3.2000 the provisions of Rule 96ZQ of Central Excise Act provides abatement in respect of hot air stenter for continuous closure of not less than seven days w.e.f 1.3.2000, the law was changed and new provision was introduced which provides abatement only on complete closure of the factory. The abatement claim was rejected on the ground that the period 26.2.2000 to 29.2.2000 is only for four days.