https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106116 An abatement claim under Rule 96ZO(3) could not be sustained where the verification report relied on to reject part of the claim was not supplied to the assessee, and relevant fax intimations about closure and restart of the plant were not considered. Because the report formed part of the adverse basis and the closure-related communications bore directly on the disputed abatement period, non-disclosure and non-consideration caused procedural unfairness and prejudice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after supplying the report and hearing the assessee. en-us Wed, 02 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:46:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106116 An abatement claim under Rule 96ZO(3) could not be sustained where the verification report relied on to reject part of the claim was not supplied to the assessee, and relevant fax intimations about closure and restart of the plant were not considered. Because the report formed part of the adverse basis and the closure-related communications bore directly on the disputed abatement period, non-disclosure and non-consideration caused procedural unfairness and prejudice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after supplying the report and hearing the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106116