https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3305 A manufacturer under the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could still claim proportionate relief under the proviso to Section 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period the factory remained closed. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's reliance on Supreme Court authorities was misplaced because those decisions did not address the scope of the proviso in this factual setting. It followed earlier Tribunal rulings recognising abatement for closure periods of a mill or factory. The operative result was that duty was not payable for the period of factory closure. en-us Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3305 A manufacturer under the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could still claim proportionate relief under the proviso to Section 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period the factory remained closed. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's reliance on Supreme Court authorities was misplaced because those decisions did not address the scope of the proviso in this factual setting. It followed earlier Tribunal rulings recognising abatement for closure periods of a mill or factory. The operative result was that duty was not payable for the period of factory closure. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3305