https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210729 Procedural conditions under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, read with Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, were treated as directory rather than mandatory for claiming abatement. The court accepted that substantial compliance could suffice where non-observance was technical, reasonably explained, and did not promote fraud or cause administrative inconvenience. It also held that the phrase requiring fulfilment of conditions did not demand literal satisfaction of every procedural step in all cases. On that basis, abatement remained available on substantial compliance, and the reference application was rejected. en-us Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210729 Procedural conditions under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, read with Section 3A(3) of the Central Excise Act, were treated as directory rather than mandatory for claiming abatement. The court accepted that substantial compliance could suffice where non-observance was technical, reasonably explained, and did not promote fraud or cause administrative inconvenience. It also held that the phrase requiring fulfilment of conditions did not demand literal satisfaction of every procedural step in all cases. On that basis, abatement remained available on substantial compliance, and the reference application was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210729