https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180987 Abatement of duty could not be refused merely because duty for the relevant period had not been deposited. The Allahabad HC noted that Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 contained no condition making prior deposit a prerequisite for claiming abatement. In the absence of any statutory requirement imposing such a condition precedent, the department's objection could not be sustained and the challenge failed. en-us Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180987 Abatement of duty could not be refused merely because duty for the relevant period had not been deposited. The Allahabad HC noted that Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 contained no condition making prior deposit a prerequisite for claiming abatement. In the absence of any statutory requirement imposing such a condition precedent, the department's objection could not be sustained and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180987