Excise duty on closed factory periods turns on actual manufacture, not delayed procedural intimation of meter readings.

Excise duty under the central excise scheme arises only on goods actually manufactured. Where factory closure was intimated, departmental officers verified the closure, and meter readings showed negligible consumption, the absence of production during the relevant period was treated as decisive. A delayed intimation of the electricity meter reading was only a procedural lapse and did not change the substantive position that no manufacture occurred. The commentary therefore treats denial of abatement and levy for the closure period as unjustified on these facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether excise duty could be levied for a period when the factory remained closed merely because the assessee did not strictly comply with the procedural requirement of intimating the electricity meter reading within the prescribed time.

Analysis: Duty under the central excise scheme is attracted only on goods that are produced or manufactured. The factory closure was intimated, the department's officers verified the closure, and the recorded meter readings showed only negligible consumption, negativing any possibility of production during the relevant period. The delayed intimation of meter reading was a procedural lapse and did not alter the substantive fact that no manufacture had taken place. On these facts, denial of abatement and levy of duty for the closure period was unjustified.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the assessee. Excise duty could not be imposed for the closed period merely on account of delayed procedural intimation.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty cannot be levied on a closed factory period when no goods are manufactured, and a mere procedural infraction in claiming abatement does not justify collection of duty absent manufacture.

---