Abatement for sealed stenter cannot be denied when closure is proved despite departmental procedural lapse.

Abatement under Rule 96ZQ(7) was available where a hot air stenter remained sealed and closed during the relevant period, even if the revised sealing procedure in the trade notice was not strictly followed by departmental staff. The records showed that the machine was sealed and later reopened, and the assessee could not be denied relief for the Range staff's procedural lapse. Where closure exceeded one week and sealing was established, non-observance of the prescribed procedure was not treated as an absolute bar to abatement, and the claim was to be considered in the assessee's favour.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement under Rule 96ZQ(7) of the Central Excise Rules when the hot air stenter remained sealed and closed during the relevant period, despite alleged non-compliance with the revised sealing procedure in the trade notice.

Analysis: The procedural requirement for sealing and desealing was prescribed for implementation by the departmental officers, and the records showed that the stenter was in fact sealed on 25-8-1999 and re-opened on 6-10-1999. The assessee could not be made to suffer for the Range staff's failure to follow the correct procedure under the trade notice. Where the closure exceeded one week and the machine remained sealed, denial of abatement solely on the ground of procedural non-observance was not justified.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to have the stenter treated as closed for the relevant period and to have the abatement claim considered accordingly, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement for sealing, intended to be followed by the departmental authorities with the assessee's co-operation, cannot be treated as an absolute bar to abatement when the closure and sealing are established and the departmental officers themselves failed to follow the prescribed procedure.

---