https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116506 Abatement under the compounded levy scheme was available where a stenter remained continuously closed for more than seven days, and the amendment to Rule 96ZQ from 1-3-2000 did not extinguish entitlement for the pre-amendment period. Because the closure admittedly ran from 26-2-2000 to 31-3-2000, the earlier part of the closure qualified for abatement, and denial of the claim for that period was unsustainable. The amendment affected future periods only and did not retrospectively defeat abatement already accrued on the basis of actual continuous closure. en-us Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:18:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116506 Abatement under the compounded levy scheme was available where a stenter remained continuously closed for more than seven days, and the amendment to Rule 96ZQ from 1-3-2000 did not extinguish entitlement for the pre-amendment period. Because the closure admittedly ran from 26-2-2000 to 31-3-2000, the earlier part of the closure qualified for abatement, and denial of the claim for that period was unsustainable. The amendment affected future periods only and did not retrospectively defeat abatement already accrued on the basis of actual continuous closure. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116506