Procedural compliance for excise abatement may be treated as directory where substantial compliance is shown and no fraud risk exists.

Procedural conditions under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, read with Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, were treated as directory rather than mandatory for claiming abatement. The court accepted that substantial compliance could suffice where non-observance was technical, reasonably explained, and did not promote fraud or cause administrative inconvenience. It also held that the phrase requiring fulfilment of conditions did not demand literal satisfaction of every procedural step in all cases. On that basis, abatement remained available on substantial compliance, and the reference application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the requirement under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was mandatory or directory for claiming abatement, and whether substantial compliance with the procedural conditions was sufficient.

Analysis: The Court found that the delay in filing the reference application had remained unexplained for years and that no question of law arose. On the substantive issue, it accepted the Tribunal's view that the procedural requirements for claiming abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) were directory and technical in nature. The Court held that substantial compliance could be accepted where there was a reasonable explanation for non-observance, and that the words subject to fulfilment of the conditions did not require literal satisfaction of every condition in all cases. It further noted that non-observance of a procedural condition may be condoned where it does not facilitate fraud or create administrative inconvenience.

Conclusion: The requirement was held to be directory, and substantial compliance was sufficient for abatement. The reference application was rejected.

---