https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101137 Rule 96ZNA did not bar grant of permission from a date after 1-5-2001 where the assessee had no open air stenter in the factory from 8-5-2001. The rejection based on the alleged existence of an open air stenter on 1-5-2001 was not sustained, because the record showed the stenter had ceased to exist from 8-5-2001 and the rule did not prohibit a later commencement date. The assessee's undertaking to pay duty with interest for the intervening period from 1-5-2001 to 7-5-2001 on actual production basis under the Central Excise Act was accepted, and permission was held allowable from 8-5-2001 to 31-3-2002. en-us Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:21:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101137 Rule 96ZNA did not bar grant of permission from a date after 1-5-2001 where the assessee had no open air stenter in the factory from 8-5-2001. The rejection based on the alleged existence of an open air stenter on 1-5-2001 was not sustained, because the record showed the stenter had ceased to exist from 8-5-2001 and the rule did not prohibit a later commencement date. The assessee's undertaking to pay duty with interest for the intervening period from 1-5-2001 to 7-5-2001 on actual production basis under the Central Excise Act was accepted, and permission was held allowable from 8-5-2001 to 31-3-2002. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101137