https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240911 Rebate under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not denied merely because the closure intimation omitted the hours of stoppage required by clause (e). The omission was treated as a procedural defect, and substantial compliance was held sufficient where no prejudice was caused. The curable lapse did not justify rejection of the entire claim; the proper consequence was only to exclude the first day of the claimed rebate period. Rebate was therefore admissible, subject to that limited exclusion. en-us Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240911 Rebate under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not denied merely because the closure intimation omitted the hours of stoppage required by clause (e). The omission was treated as a procedural defect, and substantial compliance was held sufficient where no prejudice was caused. The curable lapse did not justify rejection of the entire claim; the proper consequence was only to exclude the first day of the claimed rebate period. Rebate was therefore admissible, subject to that limited exclusion. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240911