Abatement for factory closure must follow the applicable trade notice and Board circular; contrary computation was set aside and remanded.

The abatement claim for factory closure under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZO(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be computed in accordance with the applicable trade notice, and any related Board circular. The adjudicating authority had adopted a different method for calculating the closure period, but that approach could not stand where the computation was governed by the relevant administrative . The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the abatement claim for the period of factory closure under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZO(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was to be computed in accordance with the trade notice issued by the departmental authority.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the method for calculating the number of days on which the factory remained closed. The impugned order adopted a methodology different from that stated in the trade notice relied upon by the assessee. As the calculation of closure days had to be examined in the light of the relevant trade notice and any corresponding Board circular, the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority after hearing the assessee.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the trade notice and any related Board circular. The assessee succeeded to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the method for computing abatement depends upon an applicable trade notice or Board circular, an order adopting a contrary methodology cannot stand and the matter must be reconsidered on that basis.

---