Abatement on furnace closure under Rule 96ZO(3) supported waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Rule 96ZO(3), as applicable during the relevant period, was read as permitting abatement on closure of the furnace because the rule then contained no prohibition against that benefit. On that prima facie view, the Tribunal found the duty demand to rest on an incorrect interpretation of the rule and granted dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, with recovery stayed pending disposal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the relevant period, Rule 96ZO(3) permitted abatement on closure of the furnace and whether the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal compared the language of Rule 96ZO(3) as it stood before and during the period in dispute and found that, for the relevant time, the rule did not contain any prohibition against availing the benefit of abatement on closure. On that basis, the Tribunal found prima facie merit in the appellants' contention and considered the demand to rest on an erroneous understanding of the rule.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and recovery was stayed pending disposal of the appeals.

---