Rule 96ZO abatement cannot be denied for minor declaration defects when closure and restart facts are verified on record.

Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO could not be denied merely because the intimation and declaration did not specify the exact hours of closure and restart of the unit. The assessee had reported the relevant closure and recommencement dates, stock particulars and meter readings, and the departmental officer had contemporaneously verified those facts in the daily stock register and log records. On that record, the rule was satisfied in substance, and the minor omission was not a valid basis to refuse relief where the underlying facts were verifiable and found correct by the proper officer. The denial of abatement was therefore unsustainable, and the claimed relief was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO despite alleged defects in the intimation and declaration regarding closure and restart of the unit.

Analysis: The assessee had intimated the dates of closure and recommencement for each claimed period, along with stock particulars and meter readings, and the departmental officer had contemporaneously verified the same in the daily stock register and log records. The requirement under Rule 96ZO was satisfied in substance, and the omission to mention the exact hours of closure and restart did not justify denial of abatement where the facts were otherwise verifiable from the record and were found correct by the proper officer.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement was unsustainable; the assessee was entitled to the claimed relief.

---