https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206697 Under the compounded levy scheme, abatement could not be denied where closure of production was intimated to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on the date of closure with the meter reading, because Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Rule 96ZO(2) required intimation either before or on the date of closure. The later receipt of a copy by the Range Officer did not defeat compliance for the first spell. For the second closure date, the closure intimation was furnished on the next day, but abatement was still admissible for the date on which the intimation itself was given. The denial of abatement for the two disputed dates was therefore unsustainable. en-us Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206697 Under the compounded levy scheme, abatement could not be denied where closure of production was intimated to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on the date of closure with the meter reading, because Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Rule 96ZO(2) required intimation either before or on the date of closure. The later receipt of a copy by the Range Officer did not defeat compliance for the first spell. For the second closure date, the closure intimation was furnished on the next day, but abatement was still admissible for the date on which the intimation itself was given. The denial of abatement for the two disputed dates was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206697