Abatement under Rule 10 cannot be denied for short notice when the machine was sealed and no production occurred.

Abatement of duty under Rule 10 could not be denied merely because three days' prior intimation for sealing the machine was not given, where the assessee had requested sealing, the request was accepted by the department, the machine was actually sealed, and no production took place during the relevant month. The prior intimation requirement was treated as a facilitative procedural step for carrying out sealing, not a substantive condition that could defeat abatement once the machine stood sealed and production had ceased. On that basis, denial of abatement and rejection of the refund claim on the ground of short notice were held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of duty under Rule 10 could be denied merely because the assessee did not give three days' prior intimation for sealing of the machine, when the machine was in fact sealed and no production took place during the relevant period.

Analysis: The appellant had requested sealing of the machine, the request was accepted by the departmental authorities, and the machine was actually sealed. There was no production during the entire relevant month. The stipulated prior intimation was treated as a facilitative requirement for the sealing process and not as a substantive condition to defeat abatement once the machine stood sealed and production had ceased.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement was unjustified. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of short notice.

---