Written notice to the jurisdictional excise officer was held sufficient compliance for closure and restart intimation under Rule 96ZO.

Written notice to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was sufficient compliance with clauses (b) and (d) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the manufacturer's duty was only to intimate the competent officer about closure of the unit for a period or the proposed restart after that period. The Court treated such intimation as meeting the prescribed procedural requirement and answered the issue in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether notice in writing to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner informing closure or restart of production amounted to sufficient compliance with clauses (b) and (d) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The only act required of the manufacturer was to intimate the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner about closure of the unit for a period or the proposed restart after that period. Such written notice was treated as adequate compliance with the prescribed clauses, since the Assistant Commissioner was the competent officer to receive that information.

Conclusion: Written notice to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was held to be sufficient compliance with clauses (b) and (d) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

---