Substantial compliance with prior-intimation rules supported duty abatement for sealed packing machines; rigid technical objections could not defeat relief.

Prior intimation under Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2012 was held to be substantially complied with where the assessee applied in advance, the sealing request was not acted upon, and the machines were later sealed on the same day on a fresh application. Because the packing machines remained sealed throughout the relevant period, abatement of duty for that period could not be denied on a rigid technical objection, and rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to abatement of duty for the period during which the packing machines remained sealed under Rule 10 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2012.

Analysis: Rule 10 required prior intimation to the Superintendent of Central Excise at least three days before the commencement of the sealing period. The appellant first applied for sealing in advance, the request was not acted upon, and a fresh application was made which resulted in sealing of the machines on the same day. It was undisputed that the machines remained sealed during the relevant period.

Conclusion: The appellant satisfied the conditions of Rule 10 and was entitled to abatement of duty for the sealed period. The rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has substantially complied with the prior-intimation requirement and the machines are in fact sealed for the relevant period, abatement cannot be denied on a rigid technical objection.

---