https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364469 Abatement of duty under Rule 10 could not be denied merely because three days' prior intimation for sealing the machine was not given, where the assessee had requested sealing, the request was accepted by the department, the machine was actually sealed, and no production took place during the relevant month. The prior intimation requirement was treated as a facilitative procedural step for carrying out sealing, not a substantive condition that could defeat abatement once the machine stood sealed and production had ceased. On that basis, denial of abatement and rejection of the refund claim on the ground of short notice were held unjustified. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:43:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364469 Abatement of duty under Rule 10 could not be denied merely because three days' prior intimation for sealing the machine was not given, where the assessee had requested sealing, the request was accepted by the department, the machine was actually sealed, and no production took place during the relevant month. The prior intimation requirement was treated as a facilitative procedural step for carrying out sealing, not a substantive condition that could defeat abatement once the machine stood sealed and production had ceased. On that basis, denial of abatement and rejection of the refund claim on the ground of short notice were held unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364469