Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. Appellant is manufacturer of steel ingots falling under subheading 7206.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act and is paying duty on the basis of annual capacity of production. Commissioner of Central Excise fixed the annual capacity of production. Commissioner of Central Excise fixed the annual capacity of production of the unit and determined the monthly duty liability as Rs.8,33,333/- under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise rules, 1944 for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Appellant applied for abatement of duty under section 3A(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZO(2) of Central Excise Rules. Commissioner however, rejected the appellant’s claim for the period from 17-5-1999 to 24-5-1999 on the ground that the closure intimation was received in the Office of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner on 20-5-1999 and the factory had restarted production on 24-5-1999. It was noticed there was no continuous closure for seven days as required under rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules. Commissioner also denied the abatement for the period from 26-10-1999 to 8-11-1999 on the ground that the intimation of closure was received in the office of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner on 28-10-1999. 2. Superintendent (Prevention along with his associates had made a surprise visit to the appellant’s factory at 14.10 hrs. on 29-10-1999 and found that the factory has taken one heat of production of 60 ingots weighing 4800 kgs. At 13.30 hrs. Since the appellant had produced ingots on 29-10-1999 it had to file closure intimation after the production on 29-10-1999 which it had not filed. Therefore the abatement was disallowed for the period from 29-10-1999 to 8-11-1999. Though the proceedings initiated against the appellants were taken up in appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise, appeals were rejected and later the matter was taken up before the Tribunal. Tribunal has also taken the view that the claim for abatement was rightly rejected and penalties were correctly imposed. Aggrieved by the same these appeals were preferred. 3. Counsel appearing for the appellant Sri.C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair submitted that the order of the respondent Annexure-D rejecting the claim for abatement during the period of closure of the factory from 26-10-99 to 8-11-99 is illegal and improper. Further it is also submitted that on 29-10-99 the appellant had given Annexure-B letter and therefore the respondent ought to have allowed abatement at least for the period from 29-10-1999 to 8-11-1999. Further it is also submitted that on 29-10-99 the appellant had given Annexure-B letter and therefore the respondent ought to have allowed abatement at least for the period from 29-10-1999 to 8-11-1999. Further, it is also stated that Annexures E & F issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise are patently illegal since he is empowered to issue show cause notices only in cases which are to be adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of paragraph 4.2 of Annexure Q. Counsel submitted, in the instant cases the adjudication was done by the Additional Commissioner and the show cause notices issued by an incompetent authority is ab-initio void. Counsel also made reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Paper Products Ltd, v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 1999 (112) ELT 765 (SC), reference was also made to the decision of the Apex Court in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Dhiran Chemical Industries, 2002(139) ELT 3 (SC). Counsel also submitted, when a penalty is proposed to be imposed for any violation of a statute, the adjudicating authority has to apply his mind in the matter of fixing the quantum of penalty. Counsel also made reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Bharat Heavy Electricals, 1998 (99) ELT 33 (SC). 4. The Asst. Solicitor General Sri. John Varghese on the other hand, contended the Commissioner and Tribunal have correctly applied the provisions since appellant had not satisfied the conditions in subrule (2) of rule 96ZO of Central Excise Rules 1944. Counsel also submitted there is no illegality in issuing show cause notice. In any view of the matter those contentions were never raised before the authorities. Counsel submitted appellant had participated in the proceedings without raising any objection and is therefore estopped from raising those contentions in these proceedings before this court. 5. The crucial question to be considered is whether the appellant is eligible for abatement under Rule 96ZO (2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 read with Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period from 17-5-99 to 24-5-99 and from 26-10-99 to 8-11-99. 5. The crucial question to be considered is whether the appellant is eligible for abatement under Rule 96ZO (2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 read with Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period from 17-5-99 to 24-5-99 and from 26-10-99 to 8-11-99. Subrule (2) of Rule 96ZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944 states that where a manufacturer does not produce the ingots and billets of non-alloy steel during any continuous period of not less than seven days and wishes to claim abatement under subrule 3 of section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the abatement will be allowed by an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise of such amount as may be specified in such order subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: a) the manufacturer shall inform in writing about the closure to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, either prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure; b) the manufacturer shall intimate the reading of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, immediately after the production in his factory is stopped along with the closing balance of stock of the ingots and billets of non-alloy steel; c) the manufacturer, when he starts production again, shall inform in writing about the starting of production to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the superintendent of Central Excise, either prior to the date of starting production or on the date of starting production; d) the manufacturer shall on start of production again along with the closing balance of stock on starting the factor, intimate the reading of the electricity meter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise; e) the manufacturer shall while sending intimation under clause (c) declare that his factory remained closed for a continuous period starting from …….. Hrs on ……… (date) to ….. Hrs on …… (date). Hrs on ……… (date) to ….. Hrs on …… (date). Facts would indicate that as regards the claim for abatement for the period from 17-5-99 to 24-5-99 the appellant’s intimation regarding the closure of the factory from 17-5-99 was received in the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner’s Office on 20-5-99 and the intimation regarding the restart of the factory from 24-5-99 was received at the Divisional Office on 26-5-99. As per conditions (a) and (c) of rule 96ZO (2) of the Central Excise rule 1944 above mentioned, the appellant has to file the closure/restart intimations either prior to or on the date of closure/restart of production and therefore the appellant has failed to fulfill the conditions (a) and (c) of rule 96ZO (2). Above mentioned rule would indicate that the period has to be counted from the date when intimation was received i.e., from 20-5-1999. Since the period of closure remains less than 7 days, the abatement cannot be allowed. Decisions referred to by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of this case. All the fact finding authorities have concurrently found that appellant had not complied with the above conditions. We find no reason to take a different view. 6. we also notice, regarding the disallowance of credit for the period from 26-10-1999 to 8-11-1999, the commissioner has observed that the closure intimation was received in the office of Assistant Commissioner on 28-11-1999. However, on 29-10-1999 when the officers visited the factory, they found that the factory had taken one heat of production consisting of 60 ingots weighing 4.8 M.Ts of ingot. Facts would indicate that on 29-10-1999 the factory was working. So found by all the fact finding authorities. Consequently, factory cannot be considered as closed from 29-10-1999 onwards as no intimation for closure was given from 29-10-1999 onwards. Consequently, we are in agreement with the authorities below that the appellant is not entitled for any abatement during the period from 26-10-99 to 8-11-1999. 7. We are also not impressed on the argument of the counsel for the appellant that the superintendent of Central Excise has no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. We notice, this contention was never raised before any authorities concerned. Counsel referred to circulars issued by the department and pointed out that those circulars are binding on the parties. 7. We are also not impressed on the argument of the counsel for the appellant that the superintendent of Central Excise has no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. We notice, this contention was never raised before any authorities concerned. Counsel referred to circulars issued by the department and pointed out that those circulars are binding on the parties. We are afraid, such a contention cannot be entertained at this stage, after having participated in all the proceedings. Further, when we read various circulars produced by the appellant along with section 11-A of Central Excise Act 1944 read with section 2(b) Central Exercise Officers have got jurisdiction to issue such notices. In any view, we do not propose to further probe into those contentions since appellant had participated in all those proceedings and at this stage this court is not justified in interfering with the proceedings which have been culminated by the order of the Tribunal. We therefore reject that contention as well. Consequently, both the appeals lack merits and accordingly they are dismissed.