https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190434 Abatement from central excise duty for alleged factory closure was unavailable where the assessee failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 96ZO(3). The record showed only a belated intimation of plant breakdown and no application to the competent authority, while the demand arose under the capacity-based duty scheme. The rule requires compliance with the statutory process when manufacture does not occur for a continuous period exceeding seven days; a bare assertion of closure at adjudication is insufficient to defeat the duty liability. The duty demand was therefore sustained. en-us Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:50:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190434 Abatement from central excise duty for alleged factory closure was unavailable where the assessee failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 96ZO(3). The record showed only a belated intimation of plant breakdown and no application to the competent authority, while the demand arose under the capacity-based duty scheme. The rule requires compliance with the statutory process when manufacture does not occur for a continuous period exceeding seven days; a bare assertion of closure at adjudication is insufficient to defeat the duty liability. The duty demand was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190434