Continuous closure under seal supports abatement even when a machine is shifted under departmental supervision.

Under the compounded levy scheme, abatement is available where the machine remains under sealing and no production occurs continuously for the prescribed closure period. A technical objection that the sealed machine was shifted from one premises to another did not defeat the claim, because the movement was intimated to and supervised by the department and the closure remained effective throughout. The decisive factor was uninterrupted non-production under sealing, not the physical location of the sealed machine. The assessee was therefore entitled to abatement, and the denial of duty relief was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of duty under the compounded levy scheme was admissible when the machine remained sealed continuously for more than the prescribed period but was shifted from one premises to another during the period of closure.

Analysis: The appellant was operating under the compounded levy scheme and sought abatement on the footing that the machine was sealed and remained out of production continuously for 23 days. The revenue denied relief on a technical view that the machine was sealed at two different locations and, therefore, the closure period should be split. The relevant rule permitted abatement on continuous closure for the stipulated period. Since the machine remained under sealing and there was no production throughout the relevant period, and the shifting was done with intimation to and supervision of the department, the objection was treated as merely technical and procedural.

Conclusion: The requirement of continuous closure was satisfied, and the claim for abatement was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The denial of abatement was set aside, and the assessee was granted the duty relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of abatement under a continuous-closure provision, the decisive factor is uninterrupted non-production under sealing, and a shift of the sealed machine under departmental supervision does not break continuity where the closure remains effective throughout the prescribed period.

---