J.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and billets. It has filed this petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with the prayer that the Tribunal be directed to state the facts and refer the following two questions of law for the opinion of this Court : - 1. "Whether the excise duty on goods not actually manufactured can be levied and collected under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the duly is levied under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the goods produced or manufactured -
(2.) "Whether duty of excise can be levied and collected simply on account of failure of applicant to strictly comply procedural requirement - 2. Notice of the petition was issued. No one appears despite completion of service. The factual position is that the petitioner had claimed abatement of excise duty on the ground that the factory premises had remained closed from January 16, 1998 to January 31, 1998. The petitioner's claim has been rejected on the basis that the meter reading regarding consumption had not been intimated on January 16, 1998, when the production was stopped. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and the Custom, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the meter reading had been duly noted by the staff of the department on January 17, 1998. A copy of the relevant extract has been produced as Annexure P4 with the petition. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that the petitioner had conveyed the meter reading vide letter dated January 19, 1998. According to the report recorded by the Staff on January 17, 1998, the meter reading was 799370 KWH.;