Abatement under Rule 96ZO(2): substantial compliance with restart declaration requirement satisfied the closure condition for duty relief.

Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits abatement of central excise duty where a factory remains closed for the relevant continuous period, and clause (e) requires a declaration at the time of restarting production confirming that closure. On the facts stated, the manufacturer had informed the department of both closure and restart, and the abatement application itself recorded continuous closure for the claimed periods. That was treated as substantial compliance with clause (e), so the statutory condition was satisfied and the rejection of abatement was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to abatement of central excise duty under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on account of closure of the factory for the relevant continuous periods, and whether the declaration made at the time of restarting production satisfied clause (e) of the rule.

Analysis: The claim for abatement had been rejected only on the ground that the appellant had not complied with clause (e) of Rule 96ZO(2), which requires the manufacturer, while sending intimation of restarting production, to declare that the factory remained closed for the stated continuous period. The appellant had already informed the department about closure and restart of the unit and, in the abatement application, specifically stated that the unit remained closed continuously for the periods claimed. On these facts, the required declaration stood substantially and effectively made, and the condition under clause (e) was satisfied.

Conclusion: The appellant had complied with Rule 96ZO(2)(e) and was entitled to abatement of duty. The rejection of the claim was unsustainable.

---