https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108265 Abatement of duty under the proviso to Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the statutory requirement is closure of the entire factory for a continuous period of not less than seven days; closure of only one furnace while another remained in operation did not satisfy that condition. The claim also failed for non-compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as the required continuous closure certificate was not furnished. The document states that both the substantive factory-closure condition and the prescribed procedural documentation are mandatory for abatement, so the rejection of the claim was sustained. en-us Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:05:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108265 Abatement of duty under the proviso to Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act was unavailable because the statutory requirement is closure of the entire factory for a continuous period of not less than seven days; closure of only one furnace while another remained in operation did not satisfy that condition. The claim also failed for non-compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as the required continuous closure certificate was not furnished. The document states that both the substantive factory-closure condition and the prescribed procedural documentation are mandatory for abatement, so the rejection of the claim was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108265