Duty abatement for furnace closure allowed where timely intimation and supporting particulars showed proven continuous non-production.

Under the compounded levy scheme, abatement of duty for furnace closure was available where the assessee had dispatched the required intimation of closure and resumption together with stock, electricity meter and declaration particulars, and the delayed receipt by the Assistant Commissioner caused no prejudice to the Revenue. The record established a continuous period of non-production, so strict reliance on the date of receipt did not defeat relief under Rule 96ZO(2). Abatement was therefore recognised for the proven closure period from 3-9-1997 to 10-9-1997, and denial of duty abatement for that eight-day period was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) for the period of closure of its furnace, notwithstanding that the intimation of closure and resumption was received by the Assistant Commissioner after the dates of dispatch, and if so, for what period.

Analysis: The assessee was under the compounded levy scheme and sought abatement for a period of furnace closure. The record showed timely dispatch of intimation of closure and resumption, along with the required stock and electricity meter particulars and the prescribed declaration. The delayed receipt by the Assistant Commissioner did not prejudice the Revenue, while the materials on record established a continuous period of non-production. On these facts, the conditions of Rule 96ZO(2) were treated as satisfied for the period beginning from the date on which the intimation was received and ending on the date of resumption, amounting to eight days.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to abatement of duty for the continuous period from 3-9-1997 to 10-9-1997, and the denial of abatement for that period was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that abatement of duty was directed to be granted for eight days of proven closure, and the remaining claim was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed intimation and supporting particulars are duly furnished and the delayed receipt causes no prejudice to the Revenue, strict insistence on the date of receipt will not defeat abatement for an established continuous period of closure under the compounded levy scheme.

---