Compounded levy abatement turns on continuous factory closure; clerical errors may be excused, but terminal dates can be excluded.

Under the compounded levy abatement scheme, relief depends on continuous factory closure for the prescribed minimum period. A formal declaration in the exact wording of clause (e) was not, by itself, fatal where closure and restart intimations otherwise showed stoppage of production; a bona fide mistake in describing opening stock instead of closing stock also did not justify rejection of the claim. However, where the exact times of closure and restart were not recorded, the terminal dates could not be counted as full closed days and had to be excluded from the eligible period. The minimum continuous closure requirement still had to be met, so abatement was available only for the recalculated periods.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether abatement of duty under Rule 96ZP(2) could be denied for want of a formal declaration of continuous closure under clause (e) when closure and restart intimations otherwise disclosed the stoppage of production. (ii) Whether the claim could be rejected for showing opening stock instead of closing stock and whether, in the absence of exact closure and restart times, the terminal dates had to be excluded while computing the eligible period of abatement.

Issue (i): Whether abatement of duty under Rule 96ZP(2) could be denied for want of a formal declaration of continuous closure under clause (e) when closure and restart intimations otherwise disclosed the stoppage of production.

Analysis: The entitlement to abatement arose under the compounded levy framework and depended on continuous non-production for the prescribed minimum period. For the period of only seven days, the absence of the exact time of closure and restart meant that it could not be verified that the factory remained closed for a full continuous period of seven days. For the longer periods, continuous closure was otherwise discernible from the record, but the formal declaration in the textual form required by clause (e) was still absent.

Conclusion: The claim for the seven-day period was not allowable on this ground, while for the remaining periods the absence of the formal declaration did not by itself defeat the claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim could be rejected for showing opening stock instead of closing stock and whether, in the absence of exact closure and restart times, the terminal dates had to be excluded while computing the eligible period of abatement.

Analysis: The mistaken mention of opening stock instead of closing stock was treated as a bona fide error and not a ground to deny the substantive benefit of abatement. However, where the exact time of closure and restart was not disclosed, it was not possible to certify that the factory remained closed for the full twenty-four hours on the terminal dates. Accordingly, the eligible period had to be computed by excluding those terminal dates.

Conclusion: The abatement claim was allowed only to the extent of the shortened periods after exclusion of the terminal dates, and was not allowed for the full claimed duration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with abatement granted for the recalculated periods of closure and refused for the initial seven-day claim.

Ratio Decidendi: In a statutory abatement scheme for duty linked to factory closure, the substantive benefit cannot be denied for a bona fide clerical mistake or mere absence of formal wording if continuous closure is otherwise established, but where exact closure and restart times are not shown, the terminal dates may be excluded from the eligible period and the minimum prescribed duration must still be satisfied.

---