Closure intimation and minimum closure period govern furnace abatement, with relief allowed only for the properly notified shutdown.

Rule 96ZO(2) abatement depended on timely closure intimation and compliance with the statutory minimum closure period. Where the assessee's telegram dated 9-1-1998 was received by the departmental inspector together with stock and meter details, the procedural requirement was treated as satisfied and abatement was available for that closure period. For the later closure period, intimation reached the excise office only on 26-3-1998, so prior notice was not complied with; because the claimed closure was shorter than the minimum seven-day period, no proportional abatement was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement for the furnace closure period from 9-1-1998 to 16-1-1998 under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether any proportional abatement could be granted for the closure period from 25-3-1998 to 31-3-1998 when the intimation was received only on 26-3-1998.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement for the furnace closure period from 9-1-1998 to 16-1-1998 under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The closure intimation for this period was found to have been submitted on 9-1-1998 by telegram and received by the departmental inspector. The intimation also contained the particulars of RG 1 stock and electricity meter readings. On these facts, the procedural requirement for informing closure was treated as having been satisfied.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to abatement for this period.

Issue (ii): Whether any proportional abatement could be granted for the closure period from 25-3-1998 to 31-3-1998 when the intimation was received only on 26-3-1998.

Analysis: The closure information for this period reached the office of the Central Excise only on 26-3-1998, so the condition of prior intimation was not complied with. The request for proportional abatement for six days was rejected because Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZO(2) require that abatement cannot be for a period of less than seven days.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to any abatement for this period.

Final Conclusion: The order was modified to allow abatement only for the first closure period and to deny relief for the second period, leaving the assessee with partial success on the abatement claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Rule 96ZO(2), closure intimation must satisfy the prescribed procedural requirements, and abatement cannot be granted for a period shorter than the minimum statutory period mandated by Section 3A(3).

---