https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341582 Abatement under the compounded levy scheme had to be examined on merits before any duty demand could be confirmed where the assessee had produced material showing closure and restart intimations, meter readings, and stock particulars under Rule 96ZB(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Because the earlier abatement request had been declined but the later representation seeking reconsideration remained undecided, the liability could not be fixed without first disposing of that claim. The adjudicating authority was required to consider the correspondence and compliance relating to closure before passing a fresh order on duty demand, and the confirmation of demand was therefore premature. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:17:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341582 Abatement under the compounded levy scheme had to be examined on merits before any duty demand could be confirmed where the assessee had produced material showing closure and restart intimations, meter readings, and stock particulars under Rule 96ZB(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Because the earlier abatement request had been declined but the later representation seeking reconsideration remained undecided, the liability could not be fixed without first disposing of that claim. The adjudicating authority was required to consider the correspondence and compliance relating to closure before passing a fresh order on duty demand, and the confirmation of demand was therefore premature. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341582