https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96371 Abatement of duty for furnace closure could not be denied where the non-operation of the furnace was established and the delay or defect in closure intimation was satisfactorily explained. The Department's objection that no continuous closure declaration had been filed for the first period was factually incorrect, and for the second period the next-day intimation was accepted because the electric meter was damaged and the assessee was awaiting a certificate from the electricity authorities. On these facts, the closure-intimation rule under Rule 96ZO(2)(E) could not be applied on a purely technical basis, and the rejection of the abatement claim was set aside. en-us Fri, 11 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:35:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96371 Abatement of duty for furnace closure could not be denied where the non-operation of the furnace was established and the delay or defect in closure intimation was satisfactorily explained. The Department's objection that no continuous closure declaration had been filed for the first period was factually incorrect, and for the second period the next-day intimation was accepted because the electric meter was damaged and the assessee was awaiting a certificate from the electricity authorities. On these facts, the closure-intimation rule under Rule 96ZO(2)(E) could not be applied on a purely technical basis, and the rejection of the abatement claim was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96371