https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109609 A manufacturer paying duty under Rule 96ZO(3) was held not disqualified from claiming abatement under Section 3A(3) on closure of the furnace, because the amended scheme and departmental circular did not exclude that relief where the prescribed closure conditions were met. The meter-reading condition under Rule 96ZO(2)(b) and Rule 96ZO(2)(d) was also satisfied by readings taken from a duly inspected, verified and sealed meter on a D.G. set, since the rules did not require a State Electricity Board meter. The denial of abatement was therefore unsustainable, and duty relief on closure was allowed. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:21:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109609 A manufacturer paying duty under Rule 96ZO(3) was held not disqualified from claiming abatement under Section 3A(3) on closure of the furnace, because the amended scheme and departmental circular did not exclude that relief where the prescribed closure conditions were met. The meter-reading condition under Rule 96ZO(2)(b) and Rule 96ZO(2)(d) was also satisfied by readings taken from a duly inspected, verified and sealed meter on a D.G. set, since the rules did not require a State Electricity Board meter. The denial of abatement was therefore unsustainable, and duty relief on closure was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109609