https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125590 Abatement of duty under Section 3A(3) depended on compliance with Rule 96ZP(2), including intimation of closure and declaration of stock position. For the uninterrupted period 1-4-1999 to 1-5-1999, a prior declaration at the start of a proven continuous closure was treated as sufficient, so the denial was set aside in favour of the assessee. For 8-5-1999 to 19-5-1999, no declaration of physical stock was filed on the date of closure, and the mandatory conditions were not met, so the abatement claim was rejected. The challenge succeeded only in part. en-us Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:23:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125590 Abatement of duty under Section 3A(3) depended on compliance with Rule 96ZP(2), including intimation of closure and declaration of stock position. For the uninterrupted period 1-4-1999 to 1-5-1999, a prior declaration at the start of a proven continuous closure was treated as sufficient, so the denial was set aside in favour of the assessee. For 8-5-1999 to 19-5-1999, no declaration of physical stock was filed on the date of closure, and the mandatory conditions were not met, so the abatement claim was rejected. The challenge succeeded only in part. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125590