https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239572 A manufacturer under the compound levy scheme was entitled to abatement where the factory had no electricity connection, was operating only on a DG set, and closure had been intimated in time. The Allahabad HC reasoned that Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be applied to insist on electricity meter readings in circumstances where no meter existed and compliance was impossible on admitted facts. Since the Revenue did not dispute the closure and the relevant intimation had been duly made, denial of abatement on that technical ground was unsustainable and the assessee's claim was allowed. en-us Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239572 A manufacturer under the compound levy scheme was entitled to abatement where the factory had no electricity connection, was operating only on a DG set, and closure had been intimated in time. The Allahabad HC reasoned that Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be applied to insist on electricity meter readings in circumstances where no meter existed and compliance was impossible on admitted facts. Since the Revenue did not dispute the closure and the relevant intimation had been duly made, denial of abatement on that technical ground was unsustainable and the assessee's claim was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239572