Continuous period of one month under excise abatement rules means at least one uninterrupted month, not a calendar month.

The expression "period of one month or more" in Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is construed as a continuous period of at least one month, not as a calendar month-wise period. The provision contains no qualifier requiring closure to coincide exactly with calendar months, and reading such a restriction into the rule would defeat the abatement benefit where closure spills over into the next month. On that interpretation, the assessee was entitled to the claimed abatement, and rejection of the claim was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "period of one month or more" in Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 means a continuous period of one month or more, or a calendar month-wise period requiring separate reckoning when closure spills over into the next month.

Analysis: The provision contained no explanation or qualifier limiting the phrase "one month or more" to an exact calendar month. The period of closure eligible for abatement need not synchronise with calendar months, and treating the phrase as calendar-month based would deny the benefit unless closure exactly matched a month. The Tribunal also relied on its earlier view that the expression must be read as a continuous period of one month or more.

Conclusion: The expression "period of one month or more" means a continuous period of one month or more, not a calendar month. The assessee was entitled to the abatement claimed, and the rejection of the claim was not sustainable.

---