https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75326 Under the compounded levy scheme in Rule 96ZO, abatement under sub-rule (2) was conditional and required strict compliance with prescribed intimations for closure, recommencement and stock particulars; incomplete or inconsistent letters were insufficient, and a manufacturer opting for payment under Rule 96ZO(3) could not combine that scheme with abatement benefits. The general limitation under Section 11A was held inapplicable to recovery governed by the special Rule 96ZO machinery, and the demand was treated as timely. A plea of no duty liability after 21-3-98 based on dispossession and closure failed for want of proof. Penalty was upheld only for the later period, with substantial reduction for the earlier period. en-us Wed, 20 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75326 Under the compounded levy scheme in Rule 96ZO, abatement under sub-rule (2) was conditional and required strict compliance with prescribed intimations for closure, recommencement and stock particulars; incomplete or inconsistent letters were insufficient, and a manufacturer opting for payment under Rule 96ZO(3) could not combine that scheme with abatement benefits. The general limitation under Section 11A was held inapplicable to recovery governed by the special Rule 96ZO machinery, and the demand was treated as timely. A plea of no duty liability after 21-3-98 based on dispossession and closure failed for want of proof. Penalty was upheld only for the later period, with substantial reduction for the earlier period. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75326