Procedural lapse cannot deny substantive abatement; interest may still be recoverable for the period of default.

A substantive statutory abatement cannot be denied merely because the prescribed procedure for claiming it was not followed, where entitlement to the benefit is otherwise established. The procedural lapse affects only the manner of compliance and does not extinguish the underlying right to abatement for the period of closure. However, interest may still remain payable for the period of default. The impugned order was therefore set aside to the extent it denied abatement, while the interest component was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-deposit of duty in the manner prescribed under the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 justified denial of abatement for the period of closure, and whether interest remained payable.

Analysis: The entitlement to abatement was not in dispute. The only objection raised was a procedural lapse in the manner of claiming the benefit. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions holding that a breach of the prescribed procedure does not justify denial of a substantive benefit where the entitlement itself exists. The consequence of such procedural non-compliance was confined to liability to interest.

Conclusion: The procedural lapse did not disentitle the assessee from abatement. The impugned order was set aside, with only the confirmation of interest sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in substance, while the interest component was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive statutory benefit cannot be denied merely for procedural non-compliance when entitlement is otherwise established, though interest may still be recoverable for the period of default.

---