https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100935 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants met the requirements for the abatement claim under Clause (d) of Rule 96ZQ(7) despite a delay in the notice of restart of the stenter. The Tribunal emphasized that substantive benefits should not be denied due to minor technical lapses, distinguishing between refund and abatement claims. Consequently, the appeal was granted, and consequential reliefs were awarded to the appellants. en-us Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:40:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100935 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants met the requirements for the abatement claim under Clause (d) of Rule 96ZQ(7) despite a delay in the notice of restart of the stenter. The Tribunal emphasized that substantive benefits should not be denied due to minor technical lapses, distinguishing between refund and abatement claims. Consequently, the appeal was granted, and consequential reliefs were awarded to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100935