Mandatory statutory intimation under Rule 96ZO(2) had to reach the Assistant Commissioner; notice only to the Superintendent failed.

Abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) was unavailable where the manufacturer gave the statutory intimation of closure and restart to the Superintendent instead of directly to the Assistant Commissioner. The rule was treated as mandatory, requiring written notice of closure, meter reading, reopening and stock particulars to be served on the specified authority, with a copy to the Superintendent. Service through the Superintendent alone did not satisfy the prescribed mode of compliance, even if the department later verified the closure and internally forwarded the papers. The abatement claim was therefore not allowable because the statutory requirement was not met in the manner required by the rule.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) when the statutory intimation of closure and restart was given to the Superintendent instead of directly to the Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis: Rule 96ZO(2) required the manufacturer to intimate closure, meter reading, reopening, and related stock particulars in writing to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, with a copy to the Superintendent. The provision was treated as mandatory and not directory. Since the statutory mode prescribed a specific authority for service of intimation, compliance had to be made in that manner. Intimation routed only through the Superintendent did not satisfy the rule, even if the department had later verified the closure and forwarded the papers internally.

Conclusion: The abatement claim was not allowable, as the statutory requirement was not complied with in the prescribed manner.

---