Procedural lapse in closure declaration does not defeat abatement under the compounded levy scheme; recomputation ordered.

Non-filing of the declaration under Rule 96ZO(2)(e) regarding the continuous period of factory closure was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive bar to abatement under the compounded levy scheme. The text states that the assessee had otherwise satisfied the conditions for abatement, and that closure and reopening dates are excluded while computing the period of closure. Abatement was therefore accepted in principle, and the matter was remanded only for recomputation of the eligible amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-filing of the declaration under Rule 96ZO(2)(e) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, regarding the continuous period of closure of the factory, justified denial of abatement of duty under the compounded levy scheme.

Analysis: The appellants had complied with the substantive conditions for abatement, and the dispute turned only on the omission to specify the exact period of closure in the declaration. The Tribunal treated the requirement as one concerned with computation of the closure period, and relied on earlier decisions holding that the closure and reopening dates are to be excluded while counting the period of closure. On that basis, non-filing of the declaration in the prescribed form was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive disqualification.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement was not sustained on merits, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to quantify the abatement admissible to the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's entitlement to abatement was accepted in principle, with the matter sent back only for recomputation of the eligible amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the declaration requirement relating to the period of closure under the compounded levy scheme is a procedural defect that does not by itself defeat otherwise admissible abatement.

---