Statutory abatement cannot be denied by importing a duty-first condition not found in the governing excise rule.

Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not require an assessee to pay duty first and then seek abatement. The governing rule was treated as decisive, and the absence of any express precondition meant that the benefit could not be restricted by reading in a requirement taken from Rule 96ZQ. A beneficial abatement provision must be applied as written, and a condition not found in the rule cannot be imported to defeat the claim. On that basis, denial of abatement was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement could be denied on the ground that the assessee did not pay duty first and then claim abatement, when Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 contained no such condition.

Analysis: The rule governing the claim was examined and it was found that Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not prescribe any requirement that duty must first be paid before abatement could be sought. The reference to Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not assist the Revenue, as the claim in the present case was governed by Rule 96ZO and the absence of an express condition in that rule was decisive. A beneficial provision granting abatement could not be curtailed by reading into the rule a requirement that was not there.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory abatement benefit cannot be denied by importing a precondition that is not expressly provided in the governing rule.

---