Substantial compliance under abatement notification saved the claim despite delayed intimation and late removal of pre-manufactured goods.

Abatement under Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.) was held to depend on substantial compliance where the factory remained closed during the relevant period, no machine was shown to have been operated after sealing, and the goods removed later were already manufactured and lying in balance. Delayed intimation to the department and removal beyond the stipulated time were treated as procedural irregularities that caused no prejudice to the department. On that basis, the notification's substantive benefit could not be denied for a minor lapse, and the abatement claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to abatement under the notification despite delayed intimation to the department and removal of goods beyond the stipulated time.

Analysis: The claim for abatement arose under Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.) dated 27-2-2010. The decisive consideration was that the factory had remained closed during the relevant period, no machine was shown to have been operated after sealing, and the goods removed after the stipulated time were already manufactured and lying in balance. The delayed intimation and late removal were treated as procedural irregularities that did not prejudice the department. The notification was held to have been substantially complied with, and a minor procedural lapse could not defeat the substantive benefit intended by the scheme.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the abatement benefit, and the denial by the lower authority was unsustainable.

---