https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95445 Abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) depended on correct computation of the closure period, and the Tribunal noted that only one of the two dates-the date of intimation of closure or the date of intimation of re-start-could be excluded. Because the appellant's chart appeared to exclude both dates, the computation required re-verification against the supporting papers. The pre-deposit of duty was waived, and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh verification after giving the appellants an opportunity to be heard. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:46:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95445 Abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) depended on correct computation of the closure period, and the Tribunal noted that only one of the two dates-the date of intimation of closure or the date of intimation of re-start-could be excluded. Because the appellant's chart appeared to exclude both dates, the computation required re-verification against the supporting papers. The pre-deposit of duty was waived, and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh verification after giving the appellants an opportunity to be heard. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95445