Abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) remains available despite a separate duty formula, absent any express statutory bar.

Rule 96ZP(2) permits a manufacturer who has ceased production for the prescribed period to seek abatement under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Rule 96ZP(3) provides a separate duty-payment formula and only restricts a manufacturer using that facility from claiming benefits under the proviso to Section 3A(3) or Section 3A(4); it does not bar an abatement application under Rule 96ZP(2). In the absence of any established double benefit, the abatement claim remains maintainable and the departmental objection based on Rule 96ZP(3) fails.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 bars an application for abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and whether the assessee could be denied abatement on that ground.

Analysis: Rule 96ZP(2) specifically permits a manufacturer who has not produced goods continuously for the prescribed period to seek abatement under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Rule 96ZP(3) creates a separate facility for payment of duty under a formula and contains only a limited restriction that a manufacturer availing that facility cannot claim the benefit under the proviso to Section 3A(3) or Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The rule does not impose any prohibition against filing an abatement application under Rule 96ZP(2), and no case of obtaining double benefit was established.

Conclusion: The abatement claim under Rule 96ZP(2) was maintainable and the Department's objection based on Rule 96ZP(3) failed.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the Department's appeal left intact the abatement granted to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision granting a separate abatement remedy cannot be treated as barred by another facility provision unless the statute expressly prohibits it or a prohibited double benefit is shown.

---