Substantial compliance for duty abatement defeats rejection based on minor procedural lapses in closure and resumption intimations.

Abatement of duty could not be denied for minor procedural lapses where the closing stock was reflected in the RG-1 register and monthly returns, the intimation of resumption was filed on the next working day after a weekend, and the closure period was otherwise ascertainable from the intimations. The procedural requirements were substantially complied with, the department was aware of the continuous closure, and omission to specify the closing stock or the full closure period did not justify rejection. The abatement claim was therefore entitled to be allowed and the refusal to grant it was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty despite procedural lapses in the intimation of closure, non-declaration of closing stock, and delayed intimation of resumption of production.

Analysis: The denial of abatement rested only on procedural defects, namely non-declaration of closing stock, alleged belated intimation of resumption, and omission to state the continuous closure period. The closing stock was otherwise reflected in the statutory RG-1 register and monthly returns. The intimation of resumption filed on the next working day after a Saturday and Sunday could not be treated as delayed. The closure period was ascertainable from the closure and resumption intimations, and the department was aware of the continuous closure. On these facts, the procedure for claiming abatement was substantially complied with, and minor lapses could not justify rejection of the claim.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the abatement claimed, and the rejection of the claim was unsustainable.

---