Rule 96ZO abatement cannot be refused solely for missing intimations when independent evidence shows factory closure and no electricity use.

Rule 96ZO intimations are intended to help verify non-consumption of electricity and continuous factory closure, but omission to file the prescribed meter-reading and closure particulars is not by itself conclusive against abatement. Independent and acceptable evidence may still establish the factual position, and prior communications on furnace start and closure dates may assist in determining the closure period. The electricity department certificate and bills were therefore required to be considered by the adjudicating authority, and the matter was to be reconsidered on that evidentiary basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement under Rule 96ZO despite not furnishing the prescribed meter-reading and closure particulars, and whether the matter required reconsideration on the basis of independent evidence of non-consumption of electricity and closure of the factory.

Analysis: The prescribed intimations under Rule 96ZO serve to enable the department to verify that the furnace did not consume electricity during the relevant period and that the factory remained closed continuously. However, a mere omission to furnish those particulars was held not to be conclusive against the assessee where independent and acceptable evidence could establish the factual position. The communications already made regarding the dates of starting and closure of the furnace also enabled the continuous closure period to be ascertained. The electricity department certificate and bills were therefore directed to be considered by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The assessee was not denied abatement solely for want of the prescribed intimations, and the matter was required to be reconsidered on the basis of the evidence produced.

---