https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364880 Section 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is an enabling rule-making provision and does not itself create a substantive right to abatement of duty. Abatement, where available, flows from Section 3A(3) and the corresponding rules, and a dealer opting for the concessional scheme under Rule 96ZP(3) cannot simultaneously invoke the statutory abatement mechanism under Rule 96ZP. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to claim abatement for factory closure on the basis of Section 3A(2) and, while rejecting the claim on merits, referred the legal question to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364880 Section 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is an enabling rule-making provision and does not itself create a substantive right to abatement of duty. Abatement, where available, flows from Section 3A(3) and the corresponding rules, and a dealer opting for the concessional scheme under Rule 96ZP(3) cannot simultaneously invoke the statutory abatement mechanism under Rule 96ZP. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to claim abatement for factory closure on the basis of Section 3A(2) and, while rejecting the claim on merits, referred the legal question to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364880