Abatement for closed stenter duty depends on actual closure, disclosure, and sealing conditions under compounded levy rules.

Rule 96ZQ(7)(a) permits abatement only on complete closure of the factory, while Rule 96ZQ(7)(c) treats sealing of the stenter as a material condition linked to the levy. On the stated facts, the relevant stenter had ceased operating before the material date, was later dismantled, and the assessee had disclosed the closure to excise authorities. In that setting, duty linked to the closed stenter was not attracted for the disputed period, and the separate objection based on a period of less than one month did not remain relevant once relief was accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7) for the period in question on the basis that one stenter had remained closed and dismantled, and whether duty could be demanded on the footing that there was no complete closure of the factory.

Analysis: Rule 96ZQ(7)(a) permits abatement only on complete closure of the factory and not merely on closure of a hot-air stenter, while Rule 96ZQ(7)(c) shows that sealing of the stenter is a material condition linked to the levy. On the facts, the closed Primatex stenter had not been operated after 07.12.1999 and was dismantled on 11.03.2000, and the record showed that the assessee had approached the excise authorities and had disclosed the closure position. In these circumstances, the duty linked to that stenter was not attracted for the disputed period. The second ground relating to payment of duty for a period of less than one month did not survive once the first ground was resolved in favour of the assessee.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the grant of abatement failed, and the assessee's entitlement to relief was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual record shows that the relevant stenter had in substance remained closed and unused before the material date, abatement cannot be denied merely because another stenter remained in the factory or because the levy is framed on a compounded basis.

---