Advance notice of closure supports abatement of duty despite delayed sealing and no prior duty deposit when rule conditions are met.

Advance intimation of closure under Rule 96ZQ entitled an assessee to abatement of duty for the qualifying shutdown period where production remained closed for the prescribed continuous period. The Department's delay in sealing the stenter could not defeat the claim once the required notice had been given, and the assessee could not be prejudiced by that delay. Prior deposit of duty was not a prerequisite to abatement where eligibility under the rule was otherwise established. The closure covered a full month, so the stricter condition in Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) did not govern the claim, and the Board's circular supported grant of abatement without insisting on advance payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty for the closure period under Rule 96ZQ, and whether such abatement could be denied for want of prior deposit of duty.

Analysis: Abatement under the proviso to Section 3A(3) depends on closure of production for a continuous period of not less than seven days and compliance with the prescribed conditions. The assessee had given the required advance intimation of closure under Rule 96ZQ(7)(b). Once such intimation was given, the Department was expected to seal the stenter at the commencement of the requested closure period, and the assessee could not be prejudiced by departmental delay in sealing. The stenter remained closed until 1-3-99, so the closure covered a full month and the condition in Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) did not govern the claim. The Board's circular also supported grant of abatement without insisting on prior payment of duty where eligibility was otherwise established.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to abatement of duty for the closure period without first depositing the duty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed advance intimation of closure is given and the factory remains closed for the qualifying period, abatement cannot be denied merely because the Department sealed the machinery later or because duty was not deposited in advance, if the assessee is otherwise eligible under the rule.

---