https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91888 Rule 96ZO(2) abatement depended on timely closure intimation and compliance with the statutory minimum closure period. Where the assessee's telegram dated 9-1-1998 was received by the departmental inspector together with stock and meter details, the procedural requirement was treated as satisfied and abatement was available for that closure period. For the later closure period, intimation reached the excise office only on 26-3-1998, so prior notice was not complied with; because the claimed closure was shorter than the minimum seven-day period, no proportional abatement was granted. en-us Mon, 06 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:45:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91888 Rule 96ZO(2) abatement depended on timely closure intimation and compliance with the statutory minimum closure period. Where the assessee's telegram dated 9-1-1998 was received by the departmental inspector together with stock and meter details, the procedural requirement was treated as satisfied and abatement was available for that closure period. For the later closure period, intimation reached the excise office only on 26-3-1998, so prior notice was not complied with; because the claimed closure was shorter than the minimum seven-day period, no proportional abatement was granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91888