Compounded levy abatement during shutdown upheld where intimations of closure were found to have been received.

Under the compounded levy scheme, abatement of duty was available for the period a rolling mill remained closed or non-functional, provided shutdown and reasons for closure were intimated. The rejection of abatement solely for alleged non-intimation was unsustainable because departmental correspondence indicated that the relevant intimations had in fact been received. A cited precedent on pro-rata abatement during closure further supported the claim. The appellant was therefore entitled to abatement for the shutdown period, and the denial of relief was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to abatement of duty for the period during which the rolling mill remained shut down or non-functional, and whether rejection of the claim for want of intimation could be sustained.

Analysis: Under the compounded levy scheme, abatement was available for the period of closure, subject to intimation of shutdown and reasons for closure. The impugned order proceeded on the footing that no such intimation had been received. However, the departmental letter dated 6.5.2003 permitting the appellant to furnish copies of the letters dated 1.10.1998 and 1.10.1999 supported the conclusion that the intimations had in fact been received. In these circumstances, the rejection of abatement on the ground of non-intimation was unsustainable. The cited precedent on entitlement to pro-rata abatement during the closure period also supported the claim.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to abatement for the shutdown period, and the rejection of the claim was set aside.

---