Abatement under closure rules applies when machines stay sealed, production stops, and delayed duty payment does not bar relief.

Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packaging Machines Rules allows abatement when notified goods are not produced during a continuous closure of fifteen days or more, provided prior intimation is given and the machines are sealed. Where the factory remained sealed and there was no production from 16.04.2013 to 15.05.2013, the closure period could be considered for abatement even though an earlier claim for part of that period had already been filed and allowed. Delayed payment of duty for May did not defeat abatement, because the rule does not make payment by the due date a condition precedent; the only consequence of delay is interest under Rule 9. The notice requirement was also treated as satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packaging Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 for the period during which the factory remained closed, despite the Revenue's objections based on splitting of the closure period, delayed payment of duty for May 2013, and alleged non-compliance with the notice period.

Analysis: Rule 10 permits abatement where the notified goods are not produced during any continuous period of fifteen days or more, provided prior intimation is given and the packing machines are sealed. The machines remained sealed and there was no production from 16.04.2013 to 15.05.2013. The claim for 16.04.2013 to 30.04.2013 had already been filed and allowed, while the later claim for 01.05.2013 to 15.05.2013 could not be treated as merged into the earlier application because duty for May had not yet been paid when the first claim was made. The rule does not impose payment within the due date as a condition for abatement; delay in payment merely attracts interest under Rule 9. The notice requirement under Rule 10 during the relevant period was three working days, and that requirement was satisfied.

Conclusion: The assessee satisfied the conditions for abatement, and the denial of the claim was unsustainable. The order setting aside the abatement was reversed and the appeal was allowed.

---