https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155118 The Judge ruled in favor of the Appellant in a case involving duty payment disputes under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The Appellant, a manufacturer of M.S twisted bars and angles, successfully argued that duty should not be imposed for a period when no production occurred, despite falling under the Scheme. The Judge extended the benefit of abatement under the proviso to Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the Appellant had informed the authorities about the factory closure for modification and had not commenced production during the disputed period. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the Appellant. en-us Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:25:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155118 The Judge ruled in favor of the Appellant in a case involving duty payment disputes under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The Appellant, a manufacturer of M.S twisted bars and angles, successfully argued that duty should not be imposed for a period when no production occurred, despite falling under the Scheme. The Judge extended the benefit of abatement under the proviso to Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the Appellant had informed the authorities about the factory closure for modification and had not commenced production during the disputed period. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the Appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155118