https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103960 Abatement of duty under the compounded levy scheme was considered under Section 3A and Rule 96ZO(2) in relation to closure-based relief for two periods. The Tribunal treated the closure and restart notices as compliance in substance, holding that abatement could not be refused merely because the declaration was not in the precise prescribed form. For one period, the unresolved factual question whether the entire unit, including another furnace, had remained closed required de novo examination, so the matter was remanded. For the later period, the same objections were not treated as fatal and the abatement claim was allowed. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:56:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103960 Abatement of duty under the compounded levy scheme was considered under Section 3A and Rule 96ZO(2) in relation to closure-based relief for two periods. The Tribunal treated the closure and restart notices as compliance in substance, holding that abatement could not be refused merely because the declaration was not in the precise prescribed form. For one period, the unresolved factual question whether the entire unit, including another furnace, had remained closed required de novo examination, so the matter was remanded. For the later period, the same objections were not treated as fatal and the abatement claim was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103960