Abatement under compounded levy cannot be denied for technical lapse when production closure was duly intimated and undisputed.

Abatement under the compounded levy scheme could not be denied merely because electricity meter readings were not intimated, where production had admittedly been suspended and closure of the furnace had already been informed to the Department. The non-furnishing of meter readings was treated as a technical lapse because the factory was operating on a DG set and no grid electricity was being used during the relevant periods. On these facts, the substantive benefit of abatement was held to remain available, and earlier decisions were relied on for the principle that closure intimation and related notices may amount to sufficient compliance when factual closure is undisputed.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement under the compounded levy scheme could be denied solely because the assessee did not intimate electricity meter readings, when production was admittedly suspended and closure of the furnace had been intimated to the Department.

Analysis: The claim for abatement was rejected only on the ground of non-intimation of meter reading. The suspension of production was not disputed, and the assessee had informed the Department about closure of the furnace during the relevant periods. Since the factory was running on a DG set and there was no electricity supply from the grid, non-production of meter readings was only a technical lapse. In these circumstances, the substantive benefit of abatement could not be denied. Support was drawn from earlier decisions holding that closure intimation and other notices may constitute sufficient compliance, and that abatement cannot be rejected merely for failure to furnish meter readings when the factual closure is not in dispute.

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

---