Abatement claim under compounded levy scheme sent back for reconsideration after inconsistent reasoning and missing evidence review.

Disallowance of abatement under the compounded levy scheme could not stand where the order was internally inconsistent, accepting the claim for the relevant closure periods but rejecting it for alleged non-compliance without adequate reasons. The record also failed to show proper consideration of the assessee's closure intimations and other material evidence. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh examination by the Commissioner, who was required to consider the letters and evidence on record and hear both sides before deciding the abatement claim in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disallowance of abatement claim for the disputed closure periods under the compounded levy scheme was sustainable in view of the statutory requirements and the materials on record.

Analysis: The order under challenge recorded that the abatement claim for the relevant periods was allowable, but thereafter treated the same claim as inadmissible on the ground of alleged non-compliance with sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZO(2)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The reasoning was found to be self-contradictory. The order also did not adequately consider the closure intimations sent by the assessee or record sufficient reasons for rejecting the claim for the disputed periods.

Conclusion: The disallowance of abatement could not be sustained on the existing record and the matter required fresh examination by the Commissioner after considering the assessee's letters and other materials and after hearing both sides.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the disputed abatement claim was sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand or disallowance based on abatement closure periods cannot be sustained where the order is internally inconsistent and fails to consider relevant closure intimations and material evidence; such a matter requires de novo consideration.

---