Rule 10 abatement for factory closure cannot be denied by importing a separate uninstallation requirement from another provision.

Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules, 2008 allows proportionate abatement for a continuous non-production period when the factory remains closed and all packing machines are sealed; no further condition of removal or uninstallation can be read into that provision. Rule 6(5), which deals with monthly duty computation by excluding uninstalled and sealed machines, operates in a different field and cannot be imported to restrict abatement under Rule 10. On the stated facts, timely intimation had been given and the machines stood sealed, so the abatement claim was admissible and the Revenue's objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of duty under Rule 10 of the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 was admissible for the period of continuous closure of the factory when the packing machines had been sealed, and whether Rule 6(5) required uninstallation and removal of the machines as a condition for such abatement.

Analysis: The abatement claim was founded on a continuous non-production period exceeding 15 days, during which all packing machines in the factory had been sealed under departmental supervision and no manufacturing or clearance activity took place. Rule 10 permits proportionate abatement when the factory does not produce notified goods during such period and requires sealing of all available machines, but it does not prescribe removal or uninstallation of the machines from the factory premises. Rule 6(5) operates in a different field, namely determination of monthly duty liability by excluding machines that are uninstalled and sealed, and cannot be imported into Rule 10. The two provisions serve different purposes and their conditions are not interchangeable. The failure, if any, in the manner of sealing could not be used to deny the assessee the benefit when timely intimation had been given and the machines stood sealed.

Conclusion: Abatement under Rule 10 was correctly allowed, and the Revenue's objection based on Rule 6(5) failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the order granting abatement to the manufacturer was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory abatement provision for factory closure requires sealing of all machines during a continuous non-production period, no additional condition of removal or uninstallation of the machines can be read into it; a separate provision governing duty fixation for installed machines cannot control the abatement scheme.

---