Abatement under machine duty rules turns on practical computation of advance intimation where sealing was actually done.

Abatement under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 cannot be denied merely because advance intimation for sealing the packing machine was treated as short by counting the three working days rigidly. Where the intimation was filed before the claimed abatement period and the machine was in fact sealed by the department, the rule is to be applied practically. The date of intimation is counted for the three-day period if it falls on a working day, and relief is not defeated on a technical objection once sealing has occurred.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of duty could be denied on the ground that intimation for sealing of the packing machine was not given three clear working days in advance under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the computation of the statutory period of three working days between filing of intimation and sealing of the machine. The prior intimation had been filed before the commencement of the claimed abatement period, and the machine was in fact sealed by the department. The same question had already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier decisions, including a binding High Court ruling and subsequent Tribunal decisions, which held that once the machine is sealed, abatement cannot be denied merely because the department treats the notice period as insufficient. The rule was read in a practical manner, and the date of intimation was counted for the purpose of the three-day period where it fell on a working day.

Conclusion: Abatement could not be denied on the ground of alleged delay in advance intimation, and the assessee was entitled to relief under Rule 10.

---