https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360099 Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was applied to determine whether pro-rata abatement was available when one of two furnaces in the factory remained closed during the relevant period. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same assessee and the jurisdictional High Court's prima facie view that pro-rata computation was permissible where furnace capacity changed. On that basis, the rejection of abatement was found unjustified, and the assessee was held entitled to proportionate abatement for the disputed period. en-us Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 May 2018 06:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360099 Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was applied to determine whether pro-rata abatement was available when one of two furnaces in the factory remained closed during the relevant period. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same assessee and the jurisdictional High Court's prima facie view that pro-rata computation was permissible where furnace capacity changed. On that basis, the rejection of abatement was found unjustified, and the assessee was held entitled to proportionate abatement for the disputed period. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360099