Abatement for continuous closure cannot be denied for bona fide clerical defects when statutory closure is otherwise proved.

Abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) could not be denied where continuous closure for at least seven days was otherwise established from the record and the defects were only clerical or bona fide procedural lapses. The text notes that objections such as use of opening balance instead of closing balance and absence of a formal declaration in the prescribed form did not go to the root of entitlement. It also records that the material for the later period was not meaningfully examined. On that basis, the rejection of the abatement claims was held unjustified, and the assessee was treated as entitled to abatement for both relevant years.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the abatement claims under Rule 96ZP(2) was justified despite the assessee's closure intimations and alleged procedural defects.

Analysis: The assessee was operating under the annual capacity of production scheme and was entitled to abatement for periods of continuous closure of not less than seven days, subject to compliance with Rule 96ZP(2). The rejection for 1998-99 rested largely on objections such as mention of opening balance instead of closing balance and absence of a formal declaration in the prescribed manner under clause (e). The adjudicating authority also failed to consider the documents relating to 1999-2000 in any meaningful way. The closings and resumptions, read together, were sufficient to establish the factum of continuous closure, and the defects pointed out were treated as bona fide and clerical in nature rather than as a failure going to the root of entitlement.

Conclusion: The rejection of the abatement claims was not justified. The assessee was entitled to abatement for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive abatement benefit cannot be denied for bona fide procedural or clerical defects where the statutory conditions of closure are otherwise established from the record.

---