Abatement of duty for factory closure upheld where closure, stock position, electricity disconnection, and restart were duly intimated.

Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) was allowed for the factory-closure period where the assessee had informed the Department of closure, furnished stock details of finished goods, produced an electricity disconnection certificate, and notified restart of the unit. The absence of meter readings at closure and recommencement was insufficient to displace these contemporaneous records. The Commissioner's factual findings were not shown to be perverse or unsupported by material, and the requirements for abatement were treated as satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period of closure of the factory.

Analysis: The Commissioner had found that the assessee intimated the Department about closure of the factory, supplied the stock position of finished goods, produced the certificate of disconnection of electricity issued by the Executive Engineer, and also intimated restart of the unit. The absence of meter readings at the time of closure and restart was held insufficient to dislodge these findings in view of the departmental certificate and the detailed reasons already recorded by the Commissioner. The factual conclusions reached by the Commissioner were not shown to be perverse or unsupported by material.

Conclusion: The assessee satisfied the requirements of Rule 96ZO(2) and the abatement claim was rightly allowed.

---