Substantive entitlement to excise duty abatement upheld despite technical non-furnishing of electricity meter readings.

Abatement of central excise duty was held admissible for periods when the factory remained closed, because closure and resumption were timely intimated and the record supported actual non-production. Although electricity meter readings were not furnished under Rule 96ZO(2), the assessee was operating on DG sets and was not using Board electricity, so that condition could not be complied with. The lapse was treated as purely technical and not affecting substantive entitlement to abatement; rejection of the claim on that ground was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement of central excise duty was admissible for the periods during which the factory remained closed, despite non-furnishing of electricity meter reading under Rule 96ZO(2).

Analysis: The factory closure was not disputed, and the record showed timely intimation of closure and resumption of production. The Assistant Commissioner had also allowed abatement for part of the first period after inspection, supporting the fact of closure. The only lapse was non-production of electricity meter readings, but the assessee was not using electricity from the Board and was running only on DG sets, so compliance with that condition was not possible. In the circumstances, the objection was purely technical and did not affect the substantive entitlement to abatement.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to abatement of duty, and rejection of the claim on the ground of non-furnishing of meter reading was not sustainable.

---