https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112919 The expression "period of one month or more" in Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is construed as a continuous period of at least one month, not as a calendar month-wise period. The provision contains no qualifier requiring closure to coincide exactly with calendar months, and reading such a restriction into the rule would defeat the abatement benefit where closure spills over into the next month. On that interpretation, the assessee was entitled to the claimed abatement, and rejection of the claim was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 May 2012 16:07:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112919 The expression "period of one month or more" in Rule 96ZQ(7)(f) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is construed as a continuous period of at least one month, not as a calendar month-wise period. The provision contains no qualifier requiring closure to coincide exactly with calendar months, and reading such a restriction into the rule would defeat the abatement benefit where closure spills over into the next month. On that interpretation, the assessee was entitled to the claimed abatement, and rejection of the claim was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112919