Abatement of duty for packing machines turns on continuous closure and informed departmental supervision, not minor Form-I defects.

Abatement of duty under the packing machine rules is available where the statutory condition of continuous non-production for the prescribed period is met and the department is informed in advance. Supervision by jurisdictional officers during sealing and re-installation, together with certification that no notified goods were manufactured or removed beyond the recorded period, supports the claim. A mere absence of disclosed reasons for closure has no statutory basis, and minor defects in Form-I particulars do not justify denial of the substantive abatement benefit; at most, they may attract penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent was entitled to abatement of duty under the packing machine rules on the ground of non-production for the requisite continuous period.

Analysis: The period of closure was found to be more than a continuous period of 15 days, and the jurisdictional officers had been informed in advance and had supervised the sealing and re-installation of the machines without objection. The record also showed certification by the jurisdictional Superintendent that no manufacturing activity of the notified goods was undertaken during the relevant period and that the notified goods were not removed except as recorded. The alleged want of disclosure of reasons for closure was held to have no statutory basis, and the description of the machines in Form-I was found to contain the required particulars. Any minor procedural lapse in furnishing details could at most attract penalty, not denial of the substantive benefit of abatement.

Conclusion: The respondent was held entitled to abatement, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The lower authorities' orders granting abatement were sustained, and the Revenue's appeals did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory requirement of continuous closure for the prescribed period is satisfied and the department is duly informed and supervised, minor procedural defects in intimating machine particulars do not justify denial of abatement of duty.

---