https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111460 Rule 96ZO(2)(a) was treated as satisfied where the assessee furnished closure and resumption intimations to the departmental offices on the relevant dates, and the first intimation was received on the next working day because the date fell on a Saturday. The commentary notes that the Commissioner found no breach of the intimation requirement, and that amended Rule 96ZO(3) extended abatement so that the Revenue's objection based on the assessee's duty-payment option was rejected. On that footing, abatement for the closure period was upheld and denial of relief was not justified. en-us Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:14:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111460 Rule 96ZO(2)(a) was treated as satisfied where the assessee furnished closure and resumption intimations to the departmental offices on the relevant dates, and the first intimation was received on the next working day because the date fell on a Saturday. The commentary notes that the Commissioner found no breach of the intimation requirement, and that amended Rule 96ZO(3) extended abatement so that the Revenue's objection based on the assessee's duty-payment option was rejected. On that footing, abatement for the closure period was upheld and denial of relief was not justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111460