Rule 96ZO(2) abatement claims turn on substantive compliance with closure, restart and stock disclosure requirements for excise duty relief.

Rule 96ZO(2) abatement claims may be sustained on substantive compliance where closure and restart intimations state the exact dates and times and the continuity of closure is otherwise clear, so a separate formal declaration under clause (e) is not necessarily fatal. Stock disclosure under clause (d) can also be treated as met in substance where the stock position is given in the abatement claim and can be verified from statutory records. However, if the abatement claim itself does not disclose the stock position for a closure period, clause (d) is not satisfied for that period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 despite omissions in the closure/restart intimations, and whether non-furnishing of stock particulars and formal declaration under clause (e) justified rejection of the claim for the two closure periods.

Analysis: The closure and restart letters stated the exact dates and times of closure and restart, and the restart letters referred back to the earlier closure intimations, so the continuity of closure was sufficiently ascertainable. On that basis, the absence of a separate formal declaration under clause (e) was not treated as fatal. As to stock position, the claim for the period 2-12-97 to 9-12-97 disclosed the stock in the abatement claim and the department could verify it from statutory records, so the omission was condonable and the requirement under clause (d) was treated as met in substance. For the period 3-2-98 to 10-2-98, however, there was no disclosure of stock position even in the abatement claim, so the requirement under clause (d) was not fulfilled for that period.

Conclusion: The abatement claim was allowable for the period 2-12-97 to 9-12-97, but rejection of the claim for the period 3-2-98 to 10-2-98 was upheld.

---