<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (2) TMI 545 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101412</link>
    <description>Abatement of duty under the special excise scheme was available for a continuous factory closure of not less than seven days where closure was timely intimated and the prescribed restart and stock particulars were substantially complied with. The inability to furnish electricity meter readings was explained by the Electricity Board&#039;s sealing of the meter room, which prevented access, and a new meter was later installed. As there was no contrary evidence from the Revenue to displace these facts, the procedural lapse did not defeat the substantive claim for the closure period. The assessee was therefore entitled to abatement for the period covered by the closure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:58:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 545 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101412</link>
      <description>Abatement of duty under the special excise scheme was available for a continuous factory closure of not less than seven days where closure was timely intimated and the prescribed restart and stock particulars were substantially complied with. The inability to furnish electricity meter readings was explained by the Electricity Board&#039;s sealing of the meter room, which prevented access, and a new meter was later installed. As there was no contrary evidence from the Revenue to displace these facts, the procedural lapse did not defeat the substantive claim for the closure period. The assessee was therefore entitled to abatement for the period covered by the closure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>