https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125615 Under Rule 96ZP(3), abatement was not available for intermittent temporary closure of the factory, as the special duty regime did not contemplate relief for such short closures. The duty disallowance for those closure periods was therefore maintained. However, where the factory had stopped production permanently, had not resumed operations after disconnection of electricity, and was later sold, the special duty mechanism could not sustain continuing duty liability after effective cessation of the unit. Duty was therefore not fastened for the period after permanent closure, and the duty position required re-determination on that basis. en-us Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:12:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125615 Under Rule 96ZP(3), abatement was not available for intermittent temporary closure of the factory, as the special duty regime did not contemplate relief for such short closures. The duty disallowance for those closure periods was therefore maintained. However, where the factory had stopped production permanently, had not resumed operations after disconnection of electricity, and was later sold, the special duty mechanism could not sustain continuing duty liability after effective cessation of the unit. Duty was therefore not fastened for the period after permanent closure, and the duty position required re-determination on that basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125615