Abatement for closure period under excise rules upheld where intimation was substantially complied with and amendment permitted relief.

Rule 96ZO(2)(a) was treated as satisfied where the assessee furnished closure and resumption intimations to the departmental offices on the relevant dates, and the first intimation was received on the next working day because the date fell on a Saturday. The commentary notes that the Commissioner found no breach of the intimation requirement, and that amended Rule 96ZO(3) extended abatement so that the Revenue's objection based on the assessee's duty-payment option was rejected. On that footing, abatement for the closure period was upheld and denial of relief was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of central excise duty for the closure period and whether the requirement of intimation under Rule 96ZO(2)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was violated.

Analysis: The closure and resumption intimations were found to have been furnished to the departmental offices on the relevant dates, with the first spell being received on the next working day because the dates fell on a Saturday. The Commissioner had recorded categorical findings that the assessee had not violated clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO. The appellate authority also noted that Rule 96ZO(3) had been amended to extend abatement, and therefore the Revenue's objection that abatement could not arise once duty payment was opted for under that rule was not accepted.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to the abatement and no breach of Rule 96ZO(2)(a) was established.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the grant of abatement failed and the dismissal of the appeal followed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee substantially complies with the prescribed intimation requirement for closure and the governing rule has been amended to permit abatement, denial of abatement is not justified.

---