Excise duty abatement requires strict compliance with closure and stock disclosure procedure; omission defeats the claim.

Abatement of excise duty for alleged factory closure was conditional on strict compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) and Section 3A procedure, including furnishing meter readings and stock particulars of raw materials and finished goods. The omitted particulars were treated as substantive, not technical, because they were necessary to verify actual closure and stock position. The assessee's reliance on cited precedents was distinguished on their facts. The claim for abatement was therefore rejected and the disallowance upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty for the periods of claimed factory closure despite not furnishing the meter reading and the stock position of raw materials and finished goods as required by the statutory procedure.

Analysis: The claim for abatement depended on compliance with the prescribed procedure under Rule 96ZO(2) and Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The omitted particulars were not treated as merely technical; they were essential to verify the actual stock position and the factual basis for closure. The precedents cited by the assessee were distinguished because they dealt with different issues, including the effective date of abatement and the distinction between technical and substantive conditions in other factual settings. On the facts found, the failure to furnish the required information amounted to a material breach of the rules.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to abatement, and the disallowance was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because non-furnishing of mandatory stock and closure particulars was treated as a substantive violation of the abatement procedure.

---