https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266402 Rule 96ZO(2) abatement cannot be refused merely because the manufacturer did not file a separate formal application, where the rule itself requires closure intimation, meter readings, resumption details and related declarations and the assessee otherwise asserted eligibility. Proceedings under Section 3A and Rule 96ZO also cannot validly continue after those provisions were omitted without a saving clause; once omitted, no new proceedings could be started and pending matters not concluded before omission could not be taken to completion. The stated ratio is that denial of abatement cannot rest on a non-existent procedural requirement, and continuation under omitted taxing provisions is impermissible absent saving protection. en-us Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266402 Rule 96ZO(2) abatement cannot be refused merely because the manufacturer did not file a separate formal application, where the rule itself requires closure intimation, meter readings, resumption details and related declarations and the assessee otherwise asserted eligibility. Proceedings under Section 3A and Rule 96ZO also cannot validly continue after those provisions were omitted without a saving clause; once omitted, no new proceedings could be started and pending matters not concluded before omission could not be taken to completion. The stated ratio is that denial of abatement cannot rest on a non-existent procedural requirement, and continuation under omitted taxing provisions is impermissible absent saving protection. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266402