Compounded levy abatement depends on actual factory closure, not prior payment of full monthly duty.

Under the compounded levy regime for chewing tobacco, abatement of duty is available for the period a factory remains closed and the machines are sealed, and prior payment of duty for the whole month is not a condition precedent to that relief. The entitlement, however, depends on a factual determination of the actual closure period. Because the record did not clearly establish the period during which all machines remained closed, the claim required fresh verification and the matter was remanded for factual examination and a new decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of duty under the compounded levy scheme was admissible for the period when the machines were sealed and the factory was closed, and whether prior payment of duty for the whole month was a precondition for claiming such abatement.

Analysis: The dispute arose under the compounded levy regime applicable to chewing tobacco manufactured with packing machines. The settled position, as relied upon by the Tribunal, is that where the factory remains closed for the relevant period, duty is payable only for the period during which the factory actually functioned and payment of duty for the entire month is not a condition precedent to claiming abatement. At the same time, the entitlement depends on the factual determination of the actual period of closure. Since the record did not clearly establish for which period all the machines remained closed, the matter required fresh verification.

Conclusion: Abatement could not be denied merely because the full monthly duty had not been deposited first, but the claim had to be examined on the actual period of closure. The matter was therefore remanded to the adjudicating authority for factual determination and fresh decision.

---