https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207995 Abatement of duty under the compounding levy scheme depended on proof that the notified goods were not produced for a continuous period of fifteen days or more, together with compliance with the prescribed intimation and sealing requirements; the record left uncertainty on the exact closure period and whether clearances occurred, so the rejection basis was not conclusively established. Rule 10 of the 2008 Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules was also examined against Rule 96ZND of the 1944 Central Excise Rules, with a textual difference in the wording on removal of goods requiring fresh scrutiny. The dispute was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration after hearing both sides. en-us Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207995 Abatement of duty under the compounding levy scheme depended on proof that the notified goods were not produced for a continuous period of fifteen days or more, together with compliance with the prescribed intimation and sealing requirements; the record left uncertainty on the exact closure period and whether clearances occurred, so the rejection basis was not conclusively established. Rule 10 of the 2008 Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules was also examined against Rule 96ZND of the 1944 Central Excise Rules, with a textual difference in the wording on removal of goods requiring fresh scrutiny. The dispute was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration after hearing both sides. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207995