https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114256 A refund claim for the period when a stenter remained closed under the compounded levy scheme was to be treated as an abatement claim, not as an ordinary refund claim. The Tribunal relied on correspondence showing actual closure during the relevant period and accepted that the claim fell within the closure-based abatement framework under the excise rules. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to decide the claim in accordance with law after granting a hearing to the appellants. en-us Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 May 2012 11:56:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114256 A refund claim for the period when a stenter remained closed under the compounded levy scheme was to be treated as an abatement claim, not as an ordinary refund claim. The Tribunal relied on correspondence showing actual closure during the relevant period and accepted that the claim fell within the closure-based abatement framework under the excise rules. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to decide the claim in accordance with law after granting a hearing to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114256