Rule 96ZO(2) closure-period computation required re-verification where both intimation dates were excluded from abatement calculation.

Abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) depended on correct computation of the closure period, and the Tribunal noted that only one of the two dates-the date of intimation of closure or the date of intimation of re-start-could be excluded. Because the appellant's chart appeared to exclude both dates, the computation required re-verification against the supporting papers. The pre-deposit of duty was waived, and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh verification after giving the appellants an opportunity to be heard.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pre-deposit of duty should be waived and the matter remanded for re-verification of the abatement claim under Rule 96ZO(2) on the question of exclusion of days in computing the closure period.

Analysis: The chart relied upon by the appellant indicated that both the date of receipt of intimation of closure and the date of receipt of intimation of re-start had been excluded for computing the period of closure. The Tribunal noted that, for the purpose of counting the requisite days under the rule, only one of the two dates could be excluded. In view of the apparent error in computation and the supporting view of the cited Bench decision, the matter required re-examination of the data and the supporting papers.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit of duty was waived and the appeal was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for re-verification after giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard.

---