https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100494 Abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) should not be denied on a rigid insistence on prior intimation where the furnace closure is later verified by the department and the assessee establishes the actual shutdown period. The note treats literal compliance as impracticable on the facts, since the closure was not pre-scheduled and the intervening days were holidays, and the jurisdictional officer certified the meter reading and stock position. The cited Trade Notice was found inapplicable. The operative principle is that substantial compliance and verified factual closure prevail over a hyper-technical objection to timing of intimation. en-us Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:42:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100494 Abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) should not be denied on a rigid insistence on prior intimation where the furnace closure is later verified by the department and the assessee establishes the actual shutdown period. The note treats literal compliance as impracticable on the facts, since the closure was not pre-scheduled and the intervening days were holidays, and the jurisdictional officer certified the meter reading and stock position. The cited Trade Notice was found inapplicable. The operative principle is that substantial compliance and verified factual closure prevail over a hyper-technical objection to timing of intimation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100494