https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187988 Abatement of central excise duty under Rule 96ZO(2) read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available only on strict proof of a continuous non-production period of not less than seven days. The court examined the actual functioning of the furnace on the first and last dates of the claimed closure and excluded those dates because production had occurred for part of those days. As the shutdown was not treated as a continuous seven-day period, the statutory condition for abatement was not satisfied and the claim failed. en-us Wed, 01 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:35:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187988 Abatement of central excise duty under Rule 96ZO(2) read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available only on strict proof of a continuous non-production period of not less than seven days. The court examined the actual functioning of the furnace on the first and last dates of the claimed closure and excluded those dates because production had occurred for part of those days. As the shutdown was not treated as a continuous seven-day period, the statutory condition for abatement was not satisfied and the claim failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187988