Rule 96ZO abatement cannot be denied for stock clearances or delayed closure intimation, subject to eligible period review.

Under Rule 96ZO, abatement depends on non-production of the notified goods for the prescribed continuous period, and it is not defeated merely because the manufacturer clears stock produced earlier. Delay in filing intimation of closure does not by itself bar abatement for the eligible period; eligibility must be examined from the date of intimation where appropriate. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration of the abatement claim for the closure period after intimation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether abatement under Rule 96ZO could be denied merely because the factory continued clearances from existing stock during the closure period; (ii) whether delay in filing intimation of closure necessarily disentitled the assessee from abatement.

Issue (i): Whether abatement under Rule 96ZO could be denied merely because the factory continued clearances from existing stock during the closure period.

Analysis: The condition for abatement was non-production of ingots and billets for the relevant period. The Rule, as clarified by the departmental public notice relied upon, did not require the factory to stop all activity or prevent clearances from stock manufactured earlier. The decisive fact was that notified goods were not produced for the stipulated continuous period.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement on the ground that stock clearances took place was incorrect and against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in filing intimation of closure necessarily disentitled the assessee from abatement.

Analysis: The intimation condition did not contemplate automatic denial of abatement merely because the intimation was not filed before closure or on the date of closure. On the facts stated, the assessee's claim could not be rejected for the entire period solely on that basis, and eligibility had to be considered at least from the date of intimation.

Conclusion: The Commissioner's view on delayed intimation was erroneous and the assessee was entitled to claim abatement from the date of intimation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in principle on the interpretation of Rule 96ZO, but the matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the abatement claim for the closure period after intimation.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Rule 96ZO, abatement depends on non-production of the notified goods for the prescribed period and is not defeated merely because the manufacturer clears previously manufactured stock; delay in intimation does not by itself bar abatement from the date otherwise found eligible.

---