Compounded levy abatement cannot be refused solely for non-payment in advance when closure-based relief is otherwise admissible.

Abatement under the compounded levy scheme could not be denied merely because duty was not paid in advance, where the assessee was otherwise eligible for proportionate relief for furnace closure periods under Rule 96ZO. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court decision in the assessee's own case and the Board Circular dated 15.09.1999, holding that the Commissioner had first to determine whether abatement was admissible on the facts before insisting on advance payment as a condition precedent. Denial of abatement solely on that ground was unjustified, and relief was available for the eligible closure periods.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of duty under the compounded levy scheme could be denied merely because the duty was not paid in advance, when the assessee was otherwise eligible for abatement.

Analysis: The dispute concerned closure of the furnaces for specified periods and the claim for proportionate abatement under Rule 96ZO. The reason for rejection was non-payment of duty in advance. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case and the Board Circular dated 15.09.1999, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner had to first determine eligibility for abatement, and that advance payment could not be insisted upon as a condition precedent where abatement was otherwise admissible.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement on the ground of non-payment of duty in advance was unjustified, and the assessee was entitled to abatement for the eligible closure periods.

---