Strict compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) required for closure-period abatement under the compounded levy scheme.

Closure-period abatement under the compounded levy scheme is available only on strict compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The prescribed requirements of timely intimation, disclosure of stock, and electricity meter readings were not satisfied, so the procedural condition for relief failed. Where a fiscal abatement is conditioned on a specified mode of compliance, the rule must be followed exactly as written and cannot be relaxed by interpretation or supplementation. The claim for abatement was therefore rejected for non-compliance with the statutory procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of duty for the closure period was available despite non-compliance with the conditions prescribed in Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 operated subject to the procedure in Rule 96ZO(2). The appellant did not satisfy the prescribed requirements relating to timely intimation and disclosure of stock and electricity meter reading. In a fiscal rule prescribing a particular mode of compliance, the procedure had to be followed strictly as written, and the Tribunal was not justified in relaxing or supplementing the rule.

Conclusion: The claim for abatement failed for want of compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because the statutory conditions for claiming closure-period abatement were not met.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal exemption or abatement is made conditional upon compliance with a prescribed procedure, the conditions must be strictly fulfilled in the manner required by the rule.

---