Strict compliance with closure intimation rules required for duty abatement; notice to the wrong officer was insufficient.

Rule 96ZO(2) required intimation of factory closure to the Assistant Commissioner, with a copy to the Range Superintendent, as a safeguard against clandestine manufacture and removal. Notice sent only to the Range Superintendent did not satisfy that prescribed mode of intimation and could not amount to substantial compliance. The omission to notify the Assistant Commissioner therefore defeated the claim for abatement of duty, and the order rejecting abatement was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an intimation of closure sent only to the Range Superintendent could be treated as compliance with the requirement of sending intimation to the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 96ZO(2), and whether failure to send such intimation to the Assistant Commissioner entitled the assessee to abatement of duty.

Analysis: Rule 96ZO(2) required intimation of closure of the factory to be sent to the Assistant Commissioner with a copy to the Range Superintendent. The scheme was intended to prevent clandestine manufacture and removal, and the prescribed intimation was therefore a material safeguard rather than a mere technical formality. On a strict reading of the rule, notice to the Range Superintendent alone did not satisfy the statutory requirement, and the omission to intimate the Assistant Commissioner could not be treated as substantial compliance.

Conclusion: The intimation sent only to the Range Superintendent was not valid compliance with Rule 96ZO(2), and the claim for abatement was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting abatement was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal rule prescribes a specific mode of intimation as a condition for relief, the requirement must be complied with strictly and notice to an other than the one named in the rule does not amount to compliance.

---