https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113685 Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7) was available where the stenter remained closed for more than seven days, and the claim could not be rejected on an erroneous assumption that the closure period was shorter. Notification No. 11/2000-CE (NT) was treated as limiting relief only for any period outside the rule's coverage, not as defeating entitlement for the disputed five-day period. The authorities below misapplied the rule and notification, so the abatement claim was upheld and consequential relief followed. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2012 16:27:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113685 Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZQ(7) was available where the stenter remained closed for more than seven days, and the claim could not be rejected on an erroneous assumption that the closure period was shorter. Notification No. 11/2000-CE (NT) was treated as limiting relief only for any period outside the rule's coverage, not as defeating entitlement for the disputed five-day period. The authorities below misapplied the rule and notification, so the abatement claim was upheld and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113685