https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122182 Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO could not be denied merely because the intimation and declaration did not specify the exact hours of closure and restart of the unit. The assessee had reported the relevant closure and recommencement dates, stock particulars and meter readings, and the departmental officer had contemporaneously verified those facts in the daily stock register and log records. On that record, the rule was satisfied in substance, and the minor omission was not a valid basis to refuse relief where the underlying facts were verifiable and found correct by the proper officer. The denial of abatement was therefore unsustainable, and the claimed relief was allowed. en-us Tue, 02 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:29:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122182 Abatement of duty under Rule 96ZO could not be denied merely because the intimation and declaration did not specify the exact hours of closure and restart of the unit. The assessee had reported the relevant closure and recommencement dates, stock particulars and meter readings, and the departmental officer had contemporaneously verified those facts in the daily stock register and log records. On that record, the rule was satisfied in substance, and the minor omission was not a valid basis to refuse relief where the underlying facts were verifiable and found correct by the proper officer. The denial of abatement was therefore unsustainable, and the claimed relief was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122182