https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109249 Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7)(a) was available where a single stenter of an independent processor remained closed continuously for not less than seven days, and a demand that the entire factory must also have been closed was rejected as outside the show cause notice and unsupported by the rule. Rule 96ZQ(7)(e) was construed to require payment of duty for the full month when abatement is claimed for less than a month, but not to make prior or simultaneous payment a condition precedent to the claim. A deposit made during pendency of the claim was treated as sufficient, and an opportunity to pay should have been given before rejection. The assessee was therefore entitled to abatement. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:34:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109249 Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7)(a) was available where a single stenter of an independent processor remained closed continuously for not less than seven days, and a demand that the entire factory must also have been closed was rejected as outside the show cause notice and unsupported by the rule. Rule 96ZQ(7)(e) was construed to require payment of duty for the full month when abatement is claimed for less than a month, but not to make prior or simultaneous payment a condition precedent to the claim. A deposit made during pendency of the claim was treated as sufficient, and an opportunity to pay should have been given before rejection. The assessee was therefore entitled to abatement. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109249