Abatement of central excise duty on unit closure requires full factual scrutiny and consideration of collateral evidence.

Abatement of central excise duty on alleged closure of a unit could not be rejected solely on the basis of the Electricity Department certificate where the factual record on closure, meter readings, stock position and closure intimation remained disputed. Collateral evidence, including certificates from Government departments, could be considered to assess the claim. Because the factual issues had not been properly examined and the assessee sought an opportunity to place further material, the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh adjudication in compliance with natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's claim for abatement of central excise duty on closure of the unit was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements, and whether the matter required reconsideration on the basis of collateral evidence.

Analysis: The claim for abatement arose from a period during which the unit was stated to have remained closed. The record showed disputed factual aspects regarding closure, meter readings, stock position and the closure intimation. The Tribunal accepted that the Electricity Department's certificate by itself could not ate the claim, but held that collateral evidence, including certificates from Government departments, could be taken into account for arriving at a considered view. Since the factual issues had not been properly examined and the assessee sought an opportunity to place further material, the matter required fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The rejection of the abatement claim was not finally upheld and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce material and after following the principles of natural justice.

---