Rule 96ZQ(7) abatement turns on timely closure intimation and complete closure through stoppage of the only machine.

Under Rule 96ZQ(7), a closure intimation filed three clear days before cessation of processing activity satisfied the prescribed temporal requirement, so abatement could not be denied on delay. Permanent stoppage and intended dismantling of the only stenter used in the textile processing unit amounted to complete closure of the factory, because no other continuing processing activity was shown. On that basis, denial of abatement on either ground was unsustainable and consequential relief followed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the intimation for closure under Rule 96ZQ(7) was filed within the prescribed time. (ii) Whether closure and dismantling of the only stenter used in the textile processing unit amounted to complete closure of the factory for claiming abatement.

Issue (i): Whether the intimation for closure under Rule 96ZQ(7) was filed within the prescribed time.

Analysis: The closure intimation was given on 10-3-2000 for cessation of processing activity at 2300 hours on 15-3-2000, and the abatement claim related to the period from 16-3-2000 onwards. The interval between intimation and closure thus covered three clear days. On these facts, the intimation satisfied the temporal requirement, and denial of abatement on the ground of delay was unjustified.

Conclusion: The intimation was held to be within time, and the objection of delay was rejected in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether closure and dismantling of the only stenter used in the textile processing unit amounted to complete closure of the factory for claiming abatement.

Analysis: The unit's processing activity was carried on through a single stenter, which was sealed and intended to be dismantled permanently. The record did not show any other continuing activity that could negate closure of the unit. In such circumstances, the requirement of closure for purposes of abatement could not be denied by treating the cessation of the only operative machine as something less than closure of the factory.

Conclusion: The cessation of the only stenter amounted to complete closure for the purpose of abatement, and the objection on that ground failed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The denial of abatement was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed intimation is given before the effective date of closure and the only operative equipment in the processing unit is permanently stopped and dismantled, abatement cannot be refused on a hyper-technical view of delay or on an unduly narrow conception of complete closure.

---