Procedural fairness in abatement claims requires supply of adverse verification reports and consideration of closure communications.

An abatement claim under Rule 96ZO(3) could not be sustained where the verification report relied on to reject part of the claim was not supplied to the assessee, and relevant fax intimations about closure and restart of the plant were not considered. Because the report formed part of the adverse basis and the closure-related communications bore directly on the disputed abatement period, non-disclosure and non-consideration caused procedural unfairness and prejudice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after supplying the report and hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the abatement claim under Rule 96ZO(3) could be finally sustained when the verification report relied upon by the adjudicating authority was not supplied to the assessee and relevant fax intimations regarding closure and restart of the plant were not considered.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had acted upon the verification exercise, but the record did not show that the assessee was furnished a copy of the report, despite the report forming part of the basis for rejecting the claim in part. Where a report is used to decide an adverse issue and the authority does not fully accept the same, fairness requires its supply to the affected party. The record also showed fax communications relating to closure and resumption of the unit, which were relevant to the disputed abatement period but were not considered while rejecting the claim for the later period. Non-consideration of such material caused prejudice and resulted in procedural unfairness.

Conclusion: The matter required re-examination after supplying the relevant report and considering the closure-related communications. The impugned order could not be sustained and the claim was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the assessee.

---