Abatement of duty on furnace closure depends on statutory intimation compliance, not a separate formal application.

Rule 96ZO(2) requires the assessee to furnish intimation of furnace or unit closure with the prescribed particulars on or before the due date for claiming abatement of duty under Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A separate formal abatement application is not decisive if the statutory information has been supplied. The challenged order failed to make a clear finding on whether these compliance requirements were met, so the demand could not be finally sustained on the existing record. The matter therefore required remand for a specific finding on compliance, and abatement would follow if compliance is established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO(2) on the ground that the furnace/unit remained closed for the relevant period, and whether the demand could be sustained without a clear finding on compliance with the prescribed intimation requirements.

Analysis: Under Rule 96ZO(2) read with Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the relevant obligation for claiming abatement is to furnish intimation of closure with the prescribed particulars on or before the due date. A separate formal abatement application is not the decisive requirement if the statutory information has been supplied. The order under challenge did not record a clear finding on whether the assessee had complied with these requirements, and the issue therefore could not be finally adjudicated on the existing record.

Conclusion: The matter required remand for a clear finding on compliance with Rule 96ZO(2); if compliance is found, abatement must be granted before confirming any duty demand.

---