Strict compliance with closure intimation rules governs abatement under Central Excise law, and non-compliance defeats relief.

Abatement under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was conditional on strict compliance with the closure and restart intimation requirements under Rule 96ZO(2). The record showed that written notice of closure was not received by the department on or before the closure date, the fax intimation reached only the next day, and the required immediate intimation of electricity meter reading and stock position was not given at the time of stoppage. The stock declaration also did not match the inspection report. On those facts, the denial of abatement was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 despite non-compliance with the closure and restart intimation requirements under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The entitlement to abatement was conditional upon strict compliance with the prescribed procedure. The record did not show that written intimation of closure was received by the departmental authorities either prior to or on the date of closure. The fax intimation was received only on the next day, after the claimed closure had already taken effect. Likewise, the required immediate intimation of electricity meter reading and stock position after stoppage of production was not given on the date of closure, but only on the date of restart. The stock declaration also did not tally with the inspection report, which supported the conclusion that the statutory conditions had not been satisfied.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to abatement, and the denial of relief under Section 3A was upheld.

---