https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75236 Abatement of central excise duty was held admissible for periods when the factory remained closed, because closure and resumption were timely intimated and the record supported actual non-production. Although electricity meter readings were not furnished under Rule 96ZO(2), the assessee was operating on DG sets and was not using Board electricity, so that condition could not be complied with. The lapse was treated as purely technical and not affecting substantive entitlement to abatement; rejection of the claim on that ground was not sustainable. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75236 Abatement of central excise duty was held admissible for periods when the factory remained closed, because closure and resumption were timely intimated and the record supported actual non-production. Although electricity meter readings were not furnished under Rule 96ZO(2), the assessee was operating on DG sets and was not using Board electricity, so that condition could not be complied with. The lapse was treated as purely technical and not affecting substantive entitlement to abatement; rejection of the claim on that ground was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75236