Closure-based abatement under the compounded levy scheme required consideration where the stenter remained shut during the relevant period.

A refund claim for the period when a stenter remained closed under the compounded levy scheme was to be treated as an abatement claim, not as an ordinary refund claim. The Tribunal relied on correspondence showing actual closure during the relevant period and accepted that the claim fell within the closure-based abatement framework under the excise rules. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to decide the claim in accordance with law after granting a hearing to the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for the period during which the stenter remained closed was liable to be treated as a claim for abatement of duty under the compounded levy scheme.

Analysis: The appellants had produced correspondence showing that the stenter remained closed during the relevant period. The dispute arose in the context of the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the revenue contended that refund was not available and that only abatement could be claimed in accordance with the rules. The Tribunal accepted that the factual material indicated closure of the stenter and that the claim required consideration as one for abatement of duty for the closure period.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be considered as an abatement claim and sent back to the adjudicating authority for decision in accordance with law after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing.

---