https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108391 Abatement from duty under Rule 96ZO was not available as a unilateral self-deduction by the manufacturer; it arose only after compliance with the prescribed closure-intimation and related conditions, and verification by the competent authority. The proper officer or Commissioner had to determine whether the abatement claim was admissible before any reduction in duty liability. In the circumstances described, penalty was not warranted because the dispute turned on the admissibility of abatement and the resulting duty quantification pending scrutiny. Any short payment would arise only if the abatement claim was ultimately rejected after adjudication. en-us Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:13:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108391 Abatement from duty under Rule 96ZO was not available as a unilateral self-deduction by the manufacturer; it arose only after compliance with the prescribed closure-intimation and related conditions, and verification by the competent authority. The proper officer or Commissioner had to determine whether the abatement claim was admissible before any reduction in duty liability. In the circumstances described, penalty was not warranted because the dispute turned on the admissibility of abatement and the resulting duty quantification pending scrutiny. Any short payment would arise only if the abatement claim was ultimately rejected after adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108391