https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237717 Where abatement on closure of the factory was allowed for the relevant period, differential duty could not be demanded merely because duty had not been deposited in advance, since Rule 96ZP(2) did not make prior deposit a condition precedent for abatement. On that basis, the demand for differential duty for the abated period was unsustainable. The consequential penalty for non-discharge of the duty liability was also unsustainable and was set aside along with the duty demand. en-us Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Oct 2013 09:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237717 Where abatement on closure of the factory was allowed for the relevant period, differential duty could not be demanded merely because duty had not been deposited in advance, since Rule 96ZP(2) did not make prior deposit a condition precedent for abatement. On that basis, the demand for differential duty for the abated period was unsustainable. The consequential penalty for non-discharge of the duty liability was also unsustainable and was set aside along with the duty demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237717