Substantial compliance under excise abatement rules prevails where closure notices reached the Assistant Commissioner and other conditions were satisfied.

Entitlement to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) turned on whether procedural copies of closure and restart intimations had to reach the Range Superintendent when the Assistant Commissioner had admittedly received the notices. The text treats the omission as a technical defect only, because continuous closure was established and the remaining conditions of the compounded levy scheme were otherwise satisfied. On that basis, the requirement was treated as one of substantial compliance rather than a rigid condition precedent, and denial of abatement solely for the defective copy was regarded as unjustified. The assessee was held entitled to the abatement claims.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when intimations of closure and restart of production were duly given to the Assistant Commissioner but copies sent to the Range Superintendent were said to be deficient.

Analysis: The only dispute related to the procedural requirement in clauses (b) and (d) of sub-rule (2). Continuous closure and compliance with the remaining conditions were not in dispute. Since the intimations were admittedly given to the Assistant Commissioner and the assessee had otherwise satisfied the substantive requirements of the scheme, the omission or defect in sending copies to the Range Superintendent was treated as a matter of substantial compliance. Denial of the abatement benefit on that technical ground was held to be unfair where the assessee had operated within the compounded levy scheme and had fulfilled the other conditions in full.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to the abatement claims.

---