https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110313 Abatement under the compounded levy scheme was available only if closure intimation was given to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, with a copy to the Superintendent, on or before the date of closure, and the factory remained closed continuously for at least seven days. The claim was denied for the closure commencing on 6-5-1998 because the Superintendent was not intimated on the closure date, so the period fell short of seven days. Relief was accepted for later closure periods where timely or otherwise effective intimation was established, including cases treated as effective from the date of closure or from the date the statutory intimation was actually sent. Abatement was therefore partly allowed and partly denied. en-us Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:41:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110313 Abatement under the compounded levy scheme was available only if closure intimation was given to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, with a copy to the Superintendent, on or before the date of closure, and the factory remained closed continuously for at least seven days. The claim was denied for the closure commencing on 6-5-1998 because the Superintendent was not intimated on the closure date, so the period fell short of seven days. Relief was accepted for later closure periods where timely or otherwise effective intimation was established, including cases treated as effective from the date of closure or from the date the statutory intimation was actually sent. Abatement was therefore partly allowed and partly denied. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110313