https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259186 Abatement under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was conditional on strict compliance with the closure and restart intimation requirements under Rule 96ZO(2). The record showed that written notice of closure was not received by the department on or before the closure date, the fax intimation reached only the next day, and the required immediate intimation of electricity meter reading and stock position was not given at the time of stoppage. The stock declaration also did not match the inspection report. On those facts, the denial of abatement was upheld. en-us Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259186 Abatement under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was conditional on strict compliance with the closure and restart intimation requirements under Rule 96ZO(2). The record showed that written notice of closure was not received by the department on or before the closure date, the fax intimation reached only the next day, and the required immediate intimation of electricity meter reading and stock position was not given at the time of stoppage. The stock declaration also did not match the inspection report. On those facts, the denial of abatement was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259186