Abatement under compounded levy scheme cannot be denied where a stenter was already sealed under departmental action.

The compounded levy scheme for processed textile fabrics and its abatement provision were already operative from 16.12.1998. The assessee had requested sealing before that date, and the jurisdictional superintendent sealed the stenter on 14.12.1998. The later resealing on 31.12.1998 was only to comply with a different prescribed sealing procedure. In these circumstances, abatement for the closed stenter could not be denied for the intervening period, and the denial was unjustified. The benefit was therefore available because the machinery had been sealed pursuant to departmental action while the statutory abatement provision was in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement under the compounded levy scheme for processed textile fabrics could be denied for the period after the stenter was sealed and the scheme had come into force.

Analysis: The compounded levy scheme and the abatement provision were operative from 16.12.1998. The assessee had sought sealing before the effective date, and the jurisdictional superintendent had sealed the stenter on 14.12.1998. The later resealing on 31.12.1998 was only because a different mode of sealing was prescribed. In these circumstances, the benefit of abatement for the closed stenter could not be denied for the intervening period.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement was unjustified and the assessee was entitled to the benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory abatement provision is already in force and the machinery has been sealed pursuant to departmental action, the benefit cannot be denied merely because the seal was later renewed under a different prescribed procedure.

---