https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351625 Abatement under the compounded levy scheme could not be denied merely because duty was not paid in advance, where the assessee was otherwise eligible for proportionate relief for furnace closure periods under Rule 96ZO. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court decision in the assessee's own case and the Board Circular dated 15.09.1999, holding that the Commissioner had first to determine whether abatement was admissible on the facts before insisting on advance payment as a condition precedent. Denial of abatement solely on that ground was unjustified, and relief was available for the eligible closure periods. en-us Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351625 Abatement under the compounded levy scheme could not be denied merely because duty was not paid in advance, where the assessee was otherwise eligible for proportionate relief for furnace closure periods under Rule 96ZO. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court decision in the assessee's own case and the Board Circular dated 15.09.1999, holding that the Commissioner had first to determine whether abatement was admissible on the facts before insisting on advance payment as a condition precedent. Denial of abatement solely on that ground was unjustified, and relief was available for the eligible closure periods. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351625