https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95617 The abatement claim for factory closure under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZO(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be computed in accordance with the applicable trade notice, and any related Board circular. The adjudicating authority had adopted a different method for calculating the closure period, but that approach could not stand where the computation was governed by the relevant administrative . The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. en-us Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:40:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95617 The abatement claim for factory closure under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZO(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be computed in accordance with the applicable trade notice, and any related Board circular. The adjudicating authority had adopted a different method for calculating the closure period, but that approach could not stand where the computation was governed by the relevant administrative . The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95617