Duty abatement for stenter closure cannot be denied on an reading of the closure period and notification limits.

Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7) was available where the stenter remained closed for more than seven days, and the claim could not be rejected on an erroneous assumption that the closure period was shorter. Notification No. 11/2000-CE (NT) was treated as limiting relief only for any period outside the rule's coverage, not as defeating entitlement for the disputed five-day period. The authorities below misapplied the rule and notification, so the abatement claim was upheld and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7) for the disputed closure period, notwithstanding the objection that the stenter had not remained closed for seven days.

Analysis: The closure of the stenter was found to have continued for more than seven days. The rejection of the claim proceeded on an erroneous reading that the closed period was less than seven days. The limitation created by Notification No. 11/2000-CE (NT) only affected the availability of abatement for the remaining period and did not defeat the claim for the five-day period in dispute. The authorities below therefore misapplied the rule and the notification.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to abatement of duty for the disputed period under Rule 96ZQ(7).

Final Conclusion: The abatement claim was upheld and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual closure period satisfies the statutory requirement, abatement cannot be denied on an erroneous assumption that the closure was for less than the requisite period, and a restrictive notification cannot defeat entitlement for the period otherwise covered by the rule.

---