Judgment:
Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy,
Heard both sides. In respect of the appeal No. E/411/2003, Shri K. Balasubramanian, Ld. Adv., appearing for the appellants states that the required notice regarding closure and restarting of the factory was submitted to the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner except in respect of S.No. xvi and xvii (vide para-7 of the order in original). He states that the appellants have made substantial compliance with the rules and hence they should be allowed the benefit of abatement. In this regard, he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sharomani Alloys and Steel Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2002 (144) ELT 134 (Tri.-Del.)
2. We have heard the Ld. SDR, Shri T.H. Rao, who supports the impugned order stating that the appellants have not complied with the dual requirement of the rules, which requires notice to be given to both the Asst. Commissioner and the Range Superintendent.
3. After considering the submissions from both sides, we find that the cited decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sharomani Alloys and Steel Castings (P) Ltd. (supra), is in favour of the appellants. As such, following the ratio of the same, we set aside the impugned order except in relation to the said S.No. xvi and xvii and allow the appeal by way of remand. The original authority shall allow the abatement and re-compute the amount in the light of the ratio of the cited decision of the Tribunal. He shall also grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants before passing a fresh order.
4. In respect of the appeal No. E/412/03, the Ld. Advocate argues that the intimation of closure given on the next working day following a holiday should be taken as due intimation and the abatement should be allowed accordingly from the beginning of the date of closure. He cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of D.C. Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (139) ELT 291 (Tri.-Del.)
5. Heard the Ld. SDR, Shri T.H. Rao, who supports the impugned order.
6. After hearing both sides, we find that the cited decision of the Tribunal in the case of D.C. Steel (P) Ltd. (supra) is in favour of the appellants. Accordingly, following the ratio of the same, we set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to S.No. ii, iv, and viii (vide page-3 of the order in original) and allow the appeal by way of remand. The original authority shall allow abatement in the light of the cited decision of the Tribunal and workout the quantum of abatement and pass a fresh order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
7. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand in the above terms.