https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106264 Abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) was unavailable where the manufacturer gave the statutory intimation of closure and restart to the Superintendent instead of directly to the Assistant Commissioner. The rule was treated as mandatory, requiring written notice of closure, meter reading, reopening and stock particulars to be served on the specified authority, with a copy to the Superintendent. Service through the Superintendent alone did not satisfy the prescribed mode of compliance, even if the department later verified the closure and internally forwarded the papers. The abatement claim was therefore not allowable because the statutory requirement was not met in the manner required by the rule. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:46:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106264 Abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) was unavailable where the manufacturer gave the statutory intimation of closure and restart to the Superintendent instead of directly to the Assistant Commissioner. The rule was treated as mandatory, requiring written notice of closure, meter reading, reopening and stock particulars to be served on the specified authority, with a copy to the Superintendent. Service through the Superintendent alone did not satisfy the prescribed mode of compliance, even if the department later verified the closure and internally forwarded the papers. The abatement claim was therefore not allowable because the statutory requirement was not met in the manner required by the rule. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106264