https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190423 Abatement under Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.) was held to depend on substantial compliance where the factory remained closed during the relevant period, no machine was shown to have been operated after sealing, and the goods removed later were already manufactured and lying in balance. Delayed intimation to the department and removal beyond the stipulated time were treated as procedural irregularities that caused no prejudice to the department. On that basis, the notification's substantive benefit could not be denied for a minor lapse, and the abatement claim was allowed. en-us Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:24:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190423 Abatement under Notification No. 11/2011-C.E. (N.T.) was held to depend on substantial compliance where the factory remained closed during the relevant period, no machine was shown to have been operated after sealing, and the goods removed later were already manufactured and lying in balance. Delayed intimation to the department and removal beyond the stipulated time were treated as procedural irregularities that caused no prejudice to the department. On that basis, the notification's substantive benefit could not be denied for a minor lapse, and the abatement claim was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190423