Abatement of duty for closed stenter periods allowed without prior monthly payment, and later deposit was treated as sufficient.

Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7)(a) was available where a single stenter of an independent processor remained closed continuously for not less than seven days, and a demand that the entire factory must also have been closed was rejected as outside the show cause notice and unsupported by the rule. Rule 96ZQ(7)(e) was construed to require payment of duty for the full month when abatement is claimed for less than a month, but not to make prior or simultaneous payment a condition precedent to the claim. A deposit made during pendency of the claim was treated as sufficient, and an opportunity to pay should have been given before rejection. The assessee was therefore entitled to abatement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty for the period during which the stenter remained closed, and whether prior deposit of duty for the entire month was a condition precedent for lodging the abatement claim.

Analysis: Abatement under Rule 96ZQ(7)(a) was held to be available in respect of a single stenter of an independent processor when it remained closed continuously for not less than seven days. The objection that the entire factory had not remained closed was rejected as being beyond the scope of the show cause notice and unsupported by the rule. On the second objection, Rule 96ZQ(7)(e) was construed as requiring payment of duty for the full month where abatement is sought for less than a month, but not as mandating that such payment must precede or accompany the claim. The subsequent deposit during pendency of the claim was treated as sufficient, and opportunity to make payment ought to have been afforded before disposal of the claim.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to abatement, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---