https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212748 Non-filing of the declaration under Rule 96ZO(2)(e) regarding the continuous period of factory closure was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive bar to abatement under the compounded levy scheme. The text states that the assessee had otherwise satisfied the conditions for abatement, and that closure and reopening dates are excluded while computing the period of closure. Abatement was therefore accepted in principle, and the matter was remanded only for recomputation of the eligible amount. en-us Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212748 Non-filing of the declaration under Rule 96ZO(2)(e) regarding the continuous period of factory closure was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive bar to abatement under the compounded levy scheme. The text states that the assessee had otherwise satisfied the conditions for abatement, and that closure and reopening dates are excluded while computing the period of closure. Abatement was therefore accepted in principle, and the matter was remanded only for recomputation of the eligible amount. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212748