https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112528 Abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) depended on timely intimation to the jurisdictional Assistant or Deputy Commissioner, with a copy to the Superintendent, before or on the date production was restarted. Because the intimation in the stated instances was given after closure or after production had already recommenced, the statutory condition for the concession was not met. The procedural lapse was therefore fatal on the facts, and the claim for abatement was held not admissible. en-us Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:59:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112528 Abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) depended on timely intimation to the jurisdictional Assistant or Deputy Commissioner, with a copy to the Superintendent, before or on the date production was restarted. Because the intimation in the stated instances was given after closure or after production had already recommenced, the statutory condition for the concession was not met. The procedural lapse was therefore fatal on the facts, and the claim for abatement was held not admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112528