Abatement under compounded levy scheme requires verification of factory closure and intimation before rejection.

Entitlement to abatement under the compounded levy scheme depended on disputed facts about factory closure and whether intimation had been received by the excise authorities. Since the record indicated that closure was claimed from 15-2-2000 and the authorities had received intimation, the rejection of abatement could not be sustained without fresh verification. The matter was therefore remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration after hearing the appellant, leaving the abatement claim open for a fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the abatement claim under the compounded levy scheme required fresh verification in view of the factory closure and the intimation sent to the Central Excise authorities.

Analysis: The factory was stated to have remained closed from 15-2-2000 and also beyond 31-3-2000, when the compounded levy scheme came to an end. The record showed that intimation of closure had been received by the excise authorities, and the rejection of abatement rested on the view that prior intimation of closure had not been received. In these circumstances, the factual position regarding actual closure and entitlement to abatement required reconsideration and verification by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The rejection of abatement was not sustained at this stage and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was sent back for reconsideration on the abatement claim, leaving the entitlement open for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where entitlement to abatement depends on disputed facts concerning factory closure and receipt of intimation, the matter may be remanded for verification before a fresh decision is taken.

---