Liability-enhancing corrigendum and abatement claims under Rule 96ZP require hearing, specific pleadings, and proof of closure intimation.

A liability-enhancing corrigendum under Rule 96ZP should not be acted upon without an opportunity of hearing where it is not shown to be a mere arithmetical correction; the interim consequence was that the enhanced demand was stayed and the differential deposit waived. A claim for abatement during factory closure must be specifically raised and supported by material showing due intimation of closure to the authority; absent such proof, the stay request on that issue was rejected. The commentary thus distinguishes between corrections that merely fix obvious mistakes and amendments that increase duty liability, and stresses documentary support for closure-based abatement claims.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the corrigendum enhancing the duty liability under Rule 96ZP could be acted upon without giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether the assessee had established a claim for abatement of duty during the period of factory closure.

Issue (i): Whether the corrigendum enhancing the duty liability under Rule 96ZP could be acted upon without giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The duty liability had been revised by successive corrigenda, and the later revision increased the amount payable. The revision was not shown to be founded on any arithmetical correction or similar obvious mistake. On a prima facie view, an enhancement affecting liability could not be introduced without affording an appropriate opportunity to the assessee.

Conclusion: The demand arising from the enhanced corrigendum was stayed and deposit of the differential amount was waived.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had established a claim for abatement of duty during the period of factory closure.

Analysis: The record did not show a specific request for abatement for the closure period, nor reliable proof that the Commissioner had been duly informed of the closure in a manner that could sustain a refusal of abatement under Rule 96ZP. In the absence of such material, the claim could not be accepted at the stay stage.

Conclusion: The request for stay against the order relating to the closure period was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained interim relief against the enhanced duty demand, but no relief was granted on the claim for abatement during closure.

Ratio Decidendi: A liability-enhancing corrigendum cannot be sustained prima facie without affording an opportunity where it is not shown to be a mere arithmetical correction, and abatement claims must be specifically raised and supported by material showing due intimation of closure.

---