Impossible compliance cannot defeat abatement where factory closure and timely intimation are otherwise established.

A manufacturer under the compound levy scheme was entitled to abatement where the factory had no electricity connection, was operating only on a DG set, and closure had been intimated in time. The Allahabad HC reasoned that Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be applied to insist on electricity meter readings in circumstances where no meter existed and compliance was impossible on admitted facts. Since the Revenue did not dispute the closure and the relevant intimation had been duly made, denial of abatement on that technical ground was unsustainable and the assessee's claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a manufacturer under the compound levy scheme was entitled to abatement of duty despite not furnishing electricity meter reading, where the factory had no electricity connection, was operating only on a DG set, and closure had been intimated in time.

Analysis: The requirement of giving meter reading under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in the factual context that the factory had no electricity connection and was running only on a DG set. The closure of the factory had been found during inspection, the Revenue did not dispute the closure, and the intimation for the relevant period had been made in time. In these circumstances, insisting on electricity meter reading would amount to requiring performance of an impossible act, and the denial of abatement on that technical ground was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to abatement, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory condition for abatement cannot be insisted upon when compliance is impossible on the admitted facts, and a technical lapse will not defeat abatement where factory closure and timely intimation are otherwise established.

---