GCR No.2 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GCR No.2 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: March 17, 2010 COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, CHD. ...PETITIONER VERSUS M/S DUTT MULTIMETALS LTD. ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. PRESENT: MR. GURPREET SINGH, SR. STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. K.L. GOYAL, SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR. RISHABH KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for adjudication by this Court:- “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sending of notices of closure/restart of production by the assessee to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was sufficient compliance of Clause(b) and (d) of sub-Rule(2) of Rule 96 ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?” Wherever the assessee sends a notice to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner informing him as to whether the unit is closed down for a certain period or that unit is to restart after a specific period then, in our considered view, that would be sufficient compliance of Clause (b) GCR No.2 of 2004 -2- and (d) of sub-Rule(2) of Rule 96 ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, all that the manufacturer can do is to intimate the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who in our considered view, would be the competent officer on whom information regarding closure or restart of the unit can be given. In view of the above, we hold that sending notice in writing to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner would be sufficient compliance of clause (b) and (d) of sub-Rule 96 ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Resultantly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 17, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) Gulati JUDGE