https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260624 Procedural non-compliance in claiming abatement under the capacity-based duty rules does not, by itself, justify denial of the substantive abatement benefit where the underlying conditions for abatement are otherwise satisfied. The text notes that the machines were sealed for the relevant period and manufacture resumed thereafter, and that entitlement to abatement was not disputed; the only objection concerned the timing and manner of the claim. The operative effect is that the substantive abatement remains available despite the procedural lapse, while interest liability may still survive. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260624 Procedural non-compliance in claiming abatement under the capacity-based duty rules does not, by itself, justify denial of the substantive abatement benefit where the underlying conditions for abatement are otherwise satisfied. The text notes that the machines were sealed for the relevant period and manufacture resumed thereafter, and that entitlement to abatement was not disputed; the only objection concerned the timing and manner of the claim. The operative effect is that the substantive abatement remains available despite the procedural lapse, while interest liability may still survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260624