Furnace closure abatement cannot be denied where non-operation is proved and delayed intimation is satisfactorily explained.

Abatement of duty for furnace closure could not be denied where the non-operation of the furnace was established and the delay or defect in closure intimation was satisfactorily explained. The Department's objection that no continuous closure declaration had been filed for the first period was factually incorrect, and for the second period the next-day intimation was accepted because the electric meter was damaged and the assessee was awaiting a certificate from the electricity authorities. On these facts, the closure-intimation rule under Rule 96ZO(2)(E) could not be applied on a purely technical basis, and the rejection of the abatement claim was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement of duty for the periods during which the furnace remained closed, notwithstanding the Department's objection regarding the timing and filing of closure intimation and continuous closure declaration under Rule 96ZO(2)(E) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The assessee had filed a declaration showing closure of the furnace for the first period, and the Department's objection that no continuous closure declaration was filed was found to be factually incorrect. For the second period, the closure intimation was given on the next day, but the explanation that the electric meter was damaged and that the assessee was awaiting the certificate from the electricity authorities was accepted. The furnace's non-operation during the relevant periods was not disputed, and the reasons given for the delayed intimation were found satisfactory. On these facts, there was no basis to reject the claim for abatement.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to abatement of duty for both closure periods.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting the abatement claims was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where closure of the furnace is established and the delay or defect in intimation is satisfactorily explained, abatement of duty cannot be denied on a purely technical objection under the closure-intimation rule.

---