https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351940 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the rejection of abatement claims under the compounded levy scheme. The decision was based on the finding that no notified goods were produced during the closure/sealing period, despite a procedural lapse of clearing goods after the stipulated two-day period post-sealing. The Tribunal emphasized that abatement is warranted when no notified goods are produced during closure periods, highlighting the importance of substantive rights over minor procedural errors. en-us Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Dec 2017 07:53:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351940 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the rejection of abatement claims under the compounded levy scheme. The decision was based on the finding that no notified goods were produced during the closure/sealing period, despite a procedural lapse of clearing goods after the stipulated two-day period post-sealing. The Tribunal emphasized that abatement is warranted when no notified goods are produced during closure periods, highlighting the importance of substantive rights over minor procedural errors. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351940