Continuous closure threshold for abatement under section 3A(3) failed where factory shutdown lasted less than 15 days.

Abatement under the proviso to section 3A(3) was available only where a factory producing notified goods remained closed for a continuous period of at least 15 days. CESTAT, Mumbai held that a closure of 12 days did not satisfy that statutory threshold, so proportionate duty relief could not be claimed. The subsequent withdrawal of the annual capacity scheme from 1-3-2001 did not change the requirement of continuous closure for the prescribed minimum period. The assessee's claim for abatement was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement under the proviso to section 3A(3) was available when the factory remained closed for less than 15 continuous days.

Analysis: The proviso allows proportionate abatement only where a factory producing notified goods does not produce such goods during any continuous period of 15 days or more. The closure in the present case was only for 12 days, from 16-2-2001 to 28-2-2001, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory threshold. The withdrawal of the annual capacity scheme from 1-3-2001 did not alter the requirement of continuous closure for the prescribed minimum period.

Conclusion: No abatement was admissible for a closure period of less than 15 continuous days, and the claim of the assessee was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory condition for proportionate duty abatement was not met, so the demand to grant relief on a shorter closure period failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Abatement under section 3A(3) is available only when the notified goods are not produced for a continuous period of at least 15 days.

---