Strict compliance with statutory intimation requirements governs abatement claims under Rule 96ZP(2), and delayed notice defeats the concession.

Abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) depended on timely intimation to the jurisdictional Assistant or Deputy Commissioner, with a copy to the Superintendent, before or on the date production was restarted. Because the intimation in the stated instances was given after closure or after production had already recommenced, the statutory condition for the concession was not met. The procedural lapse was therefore fatal on the facts, and the claim for abatement was held not admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) despite belated intimation of closure and recommencement of production to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis: Abatement under the relevant rule was contingent upon informing the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, with a copy to the Superintendent, either prior to or on the date of restarting production. The record showed that on the material occasions the intimation was given after closure or after production had already recommenced. The statutory condition for claiming abatement was therefore not satisfied, and the procedural lapse could not be ignored on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The claim for abatement was not admissible and its rejection was upheld, in favour of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal concession is made conditional upon timely statutory intimation, the condition must be strictly complied with for the concession to be availed.

---