https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94728 Abatement of duty under the proviso to Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act was not available because the factory did not remain out of production for a continuous period of at least seven days; one or more furnaces stayed operational throughout the relevant period. The contention that each furnace constituted a separate factory was rejected because the premises were treated as one factory under Section 2(e), and there was no showing of separate ACP orders or separate registrations to support independent treatment. The objection based on suspension of Rule 96ZO(3) also failed, as the impugned order only denied abatement and did not determine any quantified demand under that rule. en-us Tue, 16 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2011 13:37:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94728 Abatement of duty under the proviso to Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act was not available because the factory did not remain out of production for a continuous period of at least seven days; one or more furnaces stayed operational throughout the relevant period. The contention that each furnace constituted a separate factory was rejected because the premises were treated as one factory under Section 2(e), and there was no showing of separate ACP orders or separate registrations to support independent treatment. The objection based on suspension of Rule 96ZO(3) also failed, as the impugned order only denied abatement and did not determine any quantified demand under that rule. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94728