https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92431 A liability-enhancing corrigendum under Rule 96ZP should not be acted upon without an opportunity of hearing where it is not shown to be a mere arithmetical correction; the interim consequence was that the enhanced demand was stayed and the differential deposit waived. A claim for abatement during factory closure must be specifically raised and supported by material showing due intimation of closure to the authority; absent such proof, the stay request on that issue was rejected. The commentary thus distinguishes between corrections that merely fix obvious mistakes and amendments that increase duty liability, and stresses documentary support for closure-based abatement claims. en-us Thu, 09 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:51:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92431 A liability-enhancing corrigendum under Rule 96ZP should not be acted upon without an opportunity of hearing where it is not shown to be a mere arithmetical correction; the interim consequence was that the enhanced demand was stayed and the differential deposit waived. A claim for abatement during factory closure must be specifically raised and supported by material showing due intimation of closure to the authority; absent such proof, the stay request on that issue was rejected. The commentary thus distinguishes between corrections that merely fix obvious mistakes and amendments that increase duty liability, and stresses documentary support for closure-based abatement claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92431