Strict seven-day non-production requirement defeats excise duty abatement where partial production breaks continuity.

Abatement of central excise duty under Rule 96ZO(2) read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available only on strict proof of a continuous non-production period of not less than seven days. The court examined the actual functioning of the furnace on the first and last dates of the claimed closure and excluded those dates because production had occurred for part of those days. As the shutdown was not treated as a continuous seven-day period, the statutory condition for abatement was not satisfied and the claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of central excise duty under Rule 96ZO(2) read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the footing that the factory remained closed for a continuous period of seven days.

Analysis: The condition for abatement required non-production during a continuous period of not less than seven days. The closure period was examined with reference to the actual functioning of the furnace on the first and last dates, and those dates were excluded because production had taken place for part of those days. On that basis, the closure was not treated as a continuous seven-day shutdown. The claim for abatement therefore failed to satisfy the statutory condition.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to abatement, and the rejection of the claim was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Abatement under Section 3A is available only when the statutory requirement of a continuous non-production period of not less than seven days is strictly fulfilled, and partial production on the boundary dates breaks the continuity.

---