Abatement of duty cannot be denied absent a statutory requirement of prior deposit under the governing excise rule.

Abatement of duty could not be refused merely because duty for the relevant period had not been deposited. The Allahabad HC noted that Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 contained no condition making prior deposit a prerequisite for claiming abatement. In the absence of any statutory requirement imposing such a condition precedent, the department's objection could not be sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of duty could be denied on the ground that the duty payable for the relevant period had not been deposited.

Analysis: The question raised in appeal was held not to arise from the Tribunal's order. Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined and found to contain no condition making prior deposit of duty a prerequisite for claiming abatement. In the absence of any such statutory requirement, the department's challenge could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The claim to abatement could not be rejected merely because the duty for the relevant period had not been deposited. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing rule does not prescribe prior deposit of duty as a condition precedent, abatement cannot be denied on that ground alone.

---