Compound levy relief is confined to the notification itself; closure of the mill did not justify abatement or rebate.

Under Notification No. 17/2007-CE, abatement or rebate of duty was not available merely because the rolling mill remained closed for a period. The special compound levy scheme allowed adjustment only when the unit ceased to work or shifted back to the normal duty payment procedure, and the assessee had not exited the scheme in that manner. Authorities under Rule 96ZA to Rule 96ZGG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were distinguished because they operated under a different statutory framework. Relief under the notification was therefore confined to what the scheme expressly permitted, and the denial of rebate was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Notification No. 17/2007-CE dated 01/03/2007, abatement or rebate of duty was admissible for the period during which the rolling mill remained closed.

Analysis: The special compound levy procedure under the notification permitted adjustment of duty only where the unit availing the scheme ceased to work or reverted to the normal duty payment procedure. The earlier decisions relied upon by the assessee were distinguished as they arose under Rule 96ZA to Rule 96ZGG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which contained a different statutory procedure. On the facts, the unit had not moved out of the compound levy scheme in the manner contemplated by the notification, and there was no provision in that procedure to grant rebate of duty already paid merely because the mill was closed for some months.

Conclusion: Abatement or rebate of duty was not admissible, and the rejection of the appeal was upheld in favour of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief under a special compound levy notification is available only to the extent expressly provided by that scheme, and cannot be claimed by analogy from a different statutory regime.

---