Abatement under Rule 96ZO cannot be denied for lack of formal application, and proceedings under omitted provisions cannot continue.

Rule 96ZO(2) abatement cannot be refused merely because the manufacturer did not file a separate formal application, where the rule itself requires closure intimation, meter readings, resumption details and related declarations and the assessee otherwise asserted eligibility. Proceedings under Section 3A and Rule 96ZO also cannot validly continue after those provisions were omitted without a saving clause; once omitted, no new proceedings could be started and pending matters not concluded before omission could not be taken to completion. The stated ratio is that denial of abatement cannot rest on a non-existent procedural requirement, and continuation under omitted taxing provisions is impermissible absent saving protection.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be denied merely because the manufacturer had not filed a formal application; (ii) whether proceedings under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZO could continue after omission of the relevant provisions.

Issue (i): whether abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be denied merely because the manufacturer had not filed a formal application.

Analysis: Rule 96ZO(2) prescribes the conditions for claiming abatement when production remains closed for the requisite continuous period. The rule requires intimation of closure, meter readings, resumption of production, and related declarations, but it does not prescribe a separate application as a condition precedent. Once the assessee had requested adjudication and asserted eligibility, denial solely on the ground that no application was filed could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement on the ground of absence of a formal application was not justified and was held against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether proceedings under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZO could continue after omission of the relevant provisions.

Analysis: The decision relied on the principle that when Rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO and Section 3A stood omitted without a saving clause, no new proceedings could be initiated and pending proceedings not concluded before the omission could not thereafter be continued to completion. Proceedings concluded after the omission were, therefore, without legal authority.

Conclusion: The continuation of the proceedings after omission of the governing provisions was held to be impermissible and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to relief, and the dispute was resolved by setting aside the adverse denial and ending the proceedings in its favour.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing rule does not require a formal application for abatement, denial cannot rest on that ground alone, and proceedings under omitted provisions cannot validly continue in the absence of a saving clause.

---