Abatement of duty for factory closure applies when shutdown exceeds one month; closure period cannot be split to deny relief.

Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7)(g) was available where an independent processor's factory remained closed for more than one month. The closure from 23-10-2000 to 1-2-2001 satisfied the statutory period, and the rule did not require the month to be treated as a calendar month. The closure period could not be split to deny abatement for part of the downtime, so denial for 24-10-2000 to 31-10-2000 was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of duty was admissible when the independent processor's factory remained closed for a period exceeding one month under Rule 96ZQ(7)(g) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The provision exempted advance payment of duty where the abatement claim was for a period of one month or more. The factory was sealed on 23-10-2000 and reopened on 1-2-2001, so the closure was for more than one month. The rule did not require the period to be treated as a calendar month, and the closure could not be split to deny abatement for a part of the period.

Conclusion: Abatement of duty was admissible for the entire closure period, and the denial for 24-10-2000 to 31-10-2000 was unsustainable.

---