Procedural compliance for duty abatement: alleged factory closure could not defeat excise demand without the prescribed application.

Abatement from central excise duty for alleged factory closure was unavailable where the assessee failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 96ZO(3). The record showed only a belated intimation of plant breakdown and no application to the competent authority, while the demand arose under the capacity-based duty scheme. The rule requires compliance with the statutory process when manufacture does not occur for a continuous period exceeding seven days; a bare assertion of closure at adjudication is insufficient to defeat the duty liability. The duty demand was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement from duty liability for the period of alleged factory closure despite not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Duty was confirmed for the month in question on the footing that the assessee did not pay central excise duty under the capacity-based scheme. The record showed only a belated intimation regarding plant breakdown, and no application for abatement was made to the competent authority. The prescribed rule requires compliance with the procedure for claiming abatement where manufacture does not take place for a continuous period exceeding seven days. Mere assertion of closure at the stage of adjudication, without following the statutory procedure, was insufficient to displace the duty demand.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to abatement, and the duty demand was rightly sustained.

---