Duty abatement for furnace closure upheld where prompt telegram notice and next-day intimation satisfied the prescribed procedure.

Abatement of duty under the furnace-based special scheme could not be denied where the furnace remained closed and the assessee informed the department by telegram on a Sunday, then gave detailed intimation on the next working day. The High Court treated the notice as consistent with the statutory procedure and the department's own Trade Notice, holding that inability to make physical delivery during a holiday did not defeat compliance when prompt intimation was given. On that footing, the denial of abatement for the closure period was held unjustified and the reference petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of duty could be denied for the period during which the furnace remained closed, when the assessee had informed the department by telegram on a Sunday and followed up with detailed intimation on the next working day.

Analysis: The claim for abatement arose under the special scheme for duty payment based on furnace operation. The closure was not in dispute. The assessee could not physically deliver notice on the intervening holiday and Sunday, but promptly sent a telegram informing the department of the closure and later furnished the detailed intimation on the next working day. The Court found this course consistent with the statutory requirement and the Trade Notice issued by the department itself, and held that the assessee had acted in accordance with the spirit of the prescribed procedure.

Conclusion: The denial of abatement for the disputed period was not justified, and the reference petition was dismissed.

---