Duty abatement under closure rules was unavailable after election of the full-and-final monthly duty scheme.

Under Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, abatement was available only where the prescribed conditions for a continuous closure period were met, whereas Rule 96ZP(3) allowed payment at the monthly rate as a full and final discharge of duty liability for the relevant period. The text states that once an assessee opted for the Rule 96ZP(3) scheme, the statutory framework did not permit a later withdrawal from that election to claim closure-based abatement. On that basis, the assessee was not entitled to proportionate reduction of duty, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee who opted to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was entitled to claim abatement or proportionate reduction of duty for the period during which the factory remained closed under Rule 96ZP(2).

Analysis: Rule 96ZP(2) permitted abatement where the manufacturer satisfied the prescribed conditions during a continuous closure period. Rule 96ZP(3), on the other hand, allowed payment of duty at the prescribed monthly rate as a full and final discharge of duty liability for the relevant period and did not provide for abatement. Once the assessee exercised the option under Rule 96ZP(3), the statutory scheme did not permit withdrawal from that choice for the purpose of claiming closure-based abatement.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to abatement or proportionate reduction of duty. The appeal failed and was dismissed.

---